The Anti-Theist and Misoclere Society

Jesus wears socks - over his head!

2012-01-28T14:26:00.000Z

According to The Telegraph, in December 2011, Sarah Crane, 38, from Orpington, Kent, spotted see the face of Jesus in the creases of a drying sock. She said she was stunned when she saw a bearded man staring back at her from the laundry line (see piccie aside). Her boyfriend agreed the crumpled grey "holy sock" bore an uncanny likeness to the traditional image of Christ. They even talked about creating a shrine to the sock but then the face was lost when they moved it. Guffaw! However, that story's no more ludicrous than anything one finds between the pages of the so-called 'Holy Bible'.

'Pot, Kettle, Black' : Mr Phoney Speaks Out!

2011-06-09T08:53:00.002+01:00

The Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum, Dr Rowan Williams (pictured) has lashed out today in The Telegraph at the UK's Coalition Government, by claiming that they are frightening people with threats and for introducing policies for which no-one voted. The sanctimonious and manipulative prat went on:

'The government needs to know how afraid people are.'

Astute readers will immediately be aware of the hypocrisy in Williams' attack, since his criticisms describe exactly the manipulative practices of the Church of England and the world-wide Anglican Communion which he heads.

Who else but clerics like Williams are masters of frightening people by telling them nonsense-tales that they face eternal torture and unimaginable horrors in some place called Hell if they don't go along with the lies and calumnies perpetrated by the charlatans, swindlers and the pathological manipulators who invented and run religions, whilst he and his kind live in a luxury that the majority can never afford?

Religious Madman Attacks Cripple!

2010-09-03T21:33:00.001+01:00

Stephen Hawking, the quondam Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, has stated in his latest book, 'The Grand Design', that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was created. Though I have not yet had an opportunity to read the book, I have no doubt that Hawking goes to considerable lengths to substantiate what he says with his usual impeccable logic and scientific evidence, nevertheless, his comments were immediately attacked by powerful apologists for religion who offered absolutely no scientific evidence or logical reasoning whatsoever to back their self-styled rebuttals of Hawking's claims.

Amongst those who attacked Hawking was that well-known delusional psychotic, Dr Rowan Williams, the Arch-buffoon of Durovernum, AKA the Archbishop of Canterbury (pictured), who stated today in ‘The Times’:

“Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe.

It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence.”

Unsurprisingly, Williams was (and is) completely unable to provide a single scintilla of credible empiric evidence to support his assertion that there is ‘ANY intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence’, consequently his claims remain nothing other than the completely unfounded and totally dysfunctional ravings of a delusional psychotic who obdurately refuses to accept objective reality.

The self-styled 'rebuttals' by Williams' co-conspirators in the 'god exists' lie were equally spurious, but then what can one expect from men who make a good living by exploiting the gullible, the needy and the psychologically dysfunctional amongst us?

RC Church: Protect Paedophile Priests' Human Rights - Bugger The Victims (Literally)!

2010-04-24T19:26:00.002+01:00

Yes, folks,surprise, surprise, it really is true (as if you didn't all know already), senior clergy in the RC Church have conspired with paedophiles for years to cover up their crimes against children. So much for their oft-quoted, strident and totally spurious claim that: "All morality comes from (their imaginary, so-called) god!"

No less a figure than Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who was one of the most influential figures in the Vatican until he retired last year, defended the church's history of sheltering abusive priests, saying that handing them over would have been like testifying against a family member. He had been asked by his local Columbian radio station, RCN, to explain why he had written to French Bishop Pierre Pican in 2001, lauding him for harbouring an abuser who was later jailed for 18 years. Cardinal Hoyos replied:

"The law in nations with a well-developed judiciary does not force anyone to testify against a child, a father, against other people close to the suspect.Why would they ask that of the church? That's the injustice. It's not about defending a paedophile. It's about defending the dignity and the human rights of a person, even the worst of criminals."

In the same interview, Cardinal Hoyos defended Pope Benedict XVI's predecessor, saying that :

" ... John Paul II, that holy pope (sic), was not wrong when he defended his priests so that they were not, due to economic reasons, treated like criminal paedophiles without due process".

Hoyos was made a cardinal in 1998 by Pope John Paul II and was head of the highly influential Congregation for the Clergy until 2006. One of its duties is to oversee complaints from clergy members who claim to have been unfairly punished by their superiors. Clearly Hoyos considered his duties involved refusing to report cases to civil investigative authorities and being complicit, if not directly involved, in acts of paedophilia.Yesterday, the US newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, published an investigation into Hoyos' time at the Congregation for the Clergy, reporting on how he had also intervened on behalf of a paedophile priest in America, against the wishes of his bishop who was trying to defrock him.

Meanwhile, Roger Vangheluwe, the Bishop of Bruges since 1984, announced he was resigning, after admitting that he had abused a boy. Vangheluwe stated:

"When I was still a simple priest, and for a while when I began as a bishop, I sexually abused a young man in my close entourage. I profoundly regret what I have done and I offer my sincerest apology to the victim, his family, the Catholic community and society in general."

It is perhaps no coincidence that Vangheluwe's resignation was made just as church officials confirmed that they were investigating 20 alleged cases of clerical abuse in Belgium. Strange that his conscience didn't appear to have prompted him to resign during any of his previous 26 years of lording it over his bishoprick!

Immodest Muslim Women Cause Natural Disasters!

2010-04-21T08:36:00.002+01:00

Rational readers may think that the young Muslim woman pictured is a raving lunatic for commenting as she does, but her views are entirely in accordance with that senior Muslim cleric and arch-idiot Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi who said during Friday prayers in Tehran last week that:

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes."

Sedighi then added:

"What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?" There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes."

Sedighi subsequently made another preposterous claim:

"A divine authority told me to tell the people to make a general repentance. Why? Because calamities threaten us."

But all is not bad news, for Sedighi claims that there is a simple solution to these horrific natural disasters:

"If a natural earthquake hits Tehran, no one will be able to confront such a calamity but God's power, only God's power. ... So let's not disappoint God."

Not to be outdone by the lunatic Sedighi, Minister of Welfare and Social Security Sadeq Mahsooli said prayers and pleas for forgiveness were the best "formulas to repel earthquakes."Mahsooli continued:

"We cannot invent a system that prevents earthquakes, but God has created this system and that is to avoid sins, to pray, to seek forgiveness, pay alms and self-sacrifice."

So, if only that young woman in the picture will now go away and put on her burkha there will be no more earthquakes!

Alternatively, Sedighi and Mahsooli could be put on a course anti-psychotic drugs and placed in a secure environment for the mentally insane.

Now that sounds like a much more sensible proposal!

Mind you, this isn't the first time that some member of the lunatic Muslim clergy (with apologies for the tautology) has blamed women for Muslim men being unable to control their carnal desires, as can be seen here.

The Truth About Paedophilia - By A Professional Tergivestator

2010-04-17T10:19:00.000+01:00

In an important speech this week by that professional tergivestator, Cardinal Bertone (pictured), the Holy See's Secretary of State and Benny Ratsare's most senior aide and arse-licker, he grudgingly acknowledged that both his master and the Roman Catholic Church had covered-up for predatory paedophile priests in their midst but added that unspecified 'research' had proved that it was their homosexuality which was exclusively to blame for their molestation of children.

Notably, however, Bertone failed to provide any specific details of this alleged research, nor did he cite references to where peer-reviewed evidence substantiating it could be found, but his pronouncements simply must be true because he is, as already stated, the Holy See's Secretary of State and Benny Ratsare's most senior aide and arse-licker. Nevertheless, he should make his sources known, for clearly this research is of major import in proving his claims that:

molestation of children is exclusively a same-sex phenomenon;
there has never been cases of heterosexual child-abuse;
the RC Church is right to excoriate homosexuality per se;
all Roman Catholic priests, especially senior one's like Bertone, speak nothing but the plain and unvarnished truth about absolutely everything.

Bertone then concluded his speech with yet further revelatory evidence from this unspecified research to which he had referred:

All clerics are liars and dissemblers!

Unfortunately that admission went largely unreported, because every rational person already knows it to be absolutely true, unlike Bertone's entirely spurious claim that there is any serious research in existence evidencing causation between homosexuality and child-molestation. But then what can one expect from a man who is a professional tergivestator and who makes his living by exploiting the ignorant, superstitious, credulous and psychologically needy amongst us.

The RC Church Still Fails To Grasp Reality!

2010-04-05T09:10:00.000+01:00

After the earlier outrageous comments by leading lights in the RC Church during their much vaunted 'Easter Week' (see here and here), no further evidence should be required to prove that this corrupt organisation still fails to grasp reality. However, the comments yesterday by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals, demonstrate just how completely out of touch ALL of this wicked and evil gang of charlatans and abusers really are.

Sodano - pictured - (or 'Angie Sod me' to his pals in the expensive silk gowns that they love to adorn themselves with), tried to ingratiate himself with his boss, Benny Ratsarse AKA 'Il Poopoo', with this egregiously sycophantic statement echoing Benny's own earlier comment which was reported here:

"The people of God are with you and do not allow themselves to be impressed by the petty gossip of the moment."

Whilst Sod-me's remarks were cheered vociferously by the mindless crowd of immoral morons in St. Peter's Square yesterday, decent people elsewhere were highly critical. As Barbara Blaine, from the US-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), said:

"Victims are seeking consolation and healing and should not be insulted and told that our speaking out is petty gossip."

Notably Sodano's comment was made after Il Poopoo's personal priest, Randy Cantalamessa had gone on record to apologise for the spurious and offensive comments he had made earlier in the week (see here) with this statement to the Corriere della Sera:

"If I inadvertently hurt the feelings of Jews and paedophilia victims, I sincerely regret it and I apologise."

Mind you, Cantalamessa's retraction would have sounded more sincere if he had added,

"And the Church will do everything possible to assist the criminal authorities to prosecute paedophile priests AND THOSE WHO COVERED UP FOR THEM!"

Unfortunately, the chances of that happening are about as slim as the RC Church admitting that it is only 'petty gossip' that their so-called 'God' exists anywhere other than in their diseased imaginations as clearly they are completely unable to grasp reality.

The Supreme Hubris of the Roman Catholic Church

2010-04-02T21:50:00.004+01:00

Following on from Benny Ratsarse's offensive dismissal of criticism last Sunday for his covering-up over predatory paedophilic priests (see here), the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa (pictured), Il Poopoo's personal priest, proclaimed today that the attacks on his (ex) Nazi boss and the completely corrupt organisation he represents were effectively as bad as the worst extremes of anti-Semitism which culminated in the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, the destruction of their places of worship, and the theft of all their wordly belongings. However, I am pleased to be able to report that these entirely spourious claims have been met with justified outrage, not only by the victims of said vile abuse, but by Jewish groups and all right-minded and decent-thinking people worldwide. Here are just some typical responses...

Stephan Kramer, general-secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews, said Cantalamessa's remarks were "a so-far-unheard-of insolence." He went on:

"It is repulsive, obscene and most of all offensive toward all abuse victims as well as to all the victims of the Holocaust. So far I haven't seen St. Peter burning, nor were there outbursts of violence against Catholic priests. I'm without words. The Vatican is now trying to turn the perpetrators into victims."

Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, US director of inter-religious relations for the American Jewish Committee, called the comments "an unfortunate use of language." He continued:

"The collective violence against the Jews resulted in the death of 6 million, while the collective violence spoken of here has not led to murder and destruction, but perhaps character assault."

Peter Isely, spokesman for the US victim support group Snap, said the sermon had been "reckless and irresponsible".He then stated:

"They're sitting in the papal palace, they're experiencing a little discomfort, and they're going to compare themselves to being rounded up or lined up and sent in cattle cars to Auschwitz?You cannot be serious."

Even the BBC's correspondent in Rome, David Willey, has admitted that the comments show the Church is continuing to defend itself rigorously and outspokenly against accusations of having systematically covered up cases of sexual abuse by priests in recent decades.Rather that than acknowledge the truth and make proper amends, eh David?

Mind you we shouldn't be too surprised at the church's continued mendacity, duplicity, and arrogance, for the whole edifice is built on a pile of lies and deceits from its earliest days to the present.

PS. According to the BBC, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has criticised the Roman Catholic Church for the way in which it has covered-up this vile abuse by predatory paedophile priests over the years and said that as an institution it has lost "all credibility", going on to add:

"And an institution so deeply bound into the life of a society, suddenly becoming, suddenly losing all credibility - that's not just a problem for the Church, it is a problem for everybody in Ireland."(sic)

Whilst on Easter Sunday, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, is expected to apologise during his Easter address in Edinburgh to the victims of paedophile priests.He will say:

"Crimes against children have indeed been committed and any Catholics who were aware of such crimes and did not act to report them, brings shame on us all."

For that disgustingly duplicitous priest Randy Cantalamessa to liken all these people to the Nazis for daring to criticise his boss demonstrates the egregious lack of integrity, monumental duplicity, and supreme hubris that his Church has exemplified over the millennia.

Presumably Randy would like us to forget that his boss, Benny Ratsarse, was also a Nazi at one time, failing which for us to pretend that it was only those others, the 'bad' Nazis, who were party to that vile organisation and participated, either by acts of omission or commission, in anti-Semitism.But don't let us forget that the very organisation which Randy and Benny belong to likes to pretend that it, under the leadership of that infamous liar and Nazi-collaborator, Pope Pius XII (see here), actually saved millions of Jews from Nazi atrocities. As Benny Ratsarse once had the temerity to declare:

"[Pius XII] spared no effort, wherever it was possible, to intervene [for Jews] directly or through instructions given to individuals or institutions in the Catholic Church."

Which explains, no doubt, why the RC Church willingly hid so many murderous ex-Nazis in its midst for decades after the War and helped them evade prosecution by the authorities for their anti-Semitism.

Hmmm, seems to me like the RC Church has a long and well-established history of covering-up for the criminals in its midst, and that Benny Ratsarse, Il Poopoo himself, has been at the heart of it!

Supreme Arrogance And Arrant Nonsense!

2010-03-29T10:39:00.001+01:00

Benny Ratsarse was at his duplicitous and mendacious best again by effectively announcing yesterday that neither he nor his evil little empire covered up for the crimes of paedophile priests in their midst.

Nothing could be more indicative of Benny's supreme arrogance and failure to grasp reality, however, than his absolutely breathtaking statement which dismissed all the claims by the damaged victims of predatory paedophilic priests as "petty gossip".

As for his response to the public outrage at the crimes covered up by Benny and the vile organisation which he represents, Ratsarse simply uttered more arrant nonsense and trite mumbo-jumbo:

"Christ guides us towards goodness and does not let us be disarmed by ingratitude."

So much for the oft-proclaimed utter falsehood uttered by so-called 'Christians' that...

"all morality comes from God".

Unsurprisingly, it seems that those who claim to be spokespersons for this so-called 'God' have absolutely no morality whatsoever. But then only a complete fool who was as out of touch with reality as those who claim to 'believe' in 'God' would expect the Pope and his minions to be moral, for Il Poopoo and his gang of criminals have spent their lifetimes deliberately lying to the credulous, ignorant, psychologically needy and damaged.

The sooner this nasty little (ex)Nazi and his gang of swindlers and liars are consigned to the dustbin of history, the better. And that goes for the paedophiles amongst them too, but not before they have spent time in prison for their disgusting crimes against some of the most vulnerable members of humanity.

Bishop Venner Praises Taliban Murderers

2009-12-14T20:34:00.000Z

Vainglorious Venner has been at it again, but this time the sanctimonious creep, homophobe, misogynist, thoroughly duplicitous and reprehensible human being has been forced to retract a recent statement he made to the Daily Telegraph regarding those Muslim murderers, misogynists, and drug-dealers, otherwise known as the Taliban. What makes Venner's latest outrageous statement so newsworthy is that the Taliban are at this very moment intent on murdering every British soldier in Afghanistan - and already they have butchered some 100 of the poor sods this year - whilst Peeved Steve Venner picks up a handsome salary for officiating as the 'Church of England’s Bishop to the Forces'. What a sick fucking joke.

When challenged for his egregious outburst on local television tonight, Shithead Venner first withdrew his praise for the Taliban, after admitting that he had never met any of them and that he really didn't know what they stood for apart from 'supporting each other and being solid in their faith', then went on to say that it was as wrong to regard all members of the Taliban as bad as it had been to regard all Germans as members of the Nazi Party during World War II. As if that non sequitur was in any way relevant , which it is not, or excused Venner's egregious exhortations of support for the Taliban. Not that we should be surprised at Venner's support for the Taliban, for in his eyes they are 'people of faith' and are worthy of respect per se, even if their faith is inimical to the faith of himself and those of us of no faith whatsoever. Nevertheless, there is one thing on which Venner and the Taliban do agree, and that is that women have no place in their so-called god's ministries, for this was the man who burst out in tears when the Church of England voted to ordain women Bishops and claimed that he had never been so ashamed about anything in his life as by the Church's decision to go against so-called 'biblical teaching'.

Maybe it's time to send Venner to Helmand for a protracted holiday, protected only by his so-called 'faith', to meet the Taliban and tell them how nice he thinks they are.

Frankly, if they murdered him, as one hopes they would, it would be a genuine blessing to the rest of us.

Hypocritical fuckwit!

Faith Is For Phoneys - Or Nutters!

2009-12-13T09:53:00.000Z

He's at it again, Dr Rowan Williams, the Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum, whining on that all intelligent people who are not psychopathologically damaged correctly identify those who profess to have religious faith as "oddities". Moreover, the Bleating Buffoon wants our political leaders to be:

"...more open about their beliefs."

Except, of course when their beliefs are what the rest of us recognise as justified true beliefs and correctly identify soi-disant religious believers as either the phoneys or nutters that they undoubtedly are.

A Kosher Drug-Dealer

2009-11-18T20:20:00.000Z

According to the BBC, Rabbi Baruch Chalomish, pictured, has been accused of being a dealer of Class A drugs, namely cocaine, but he has denied the charge and claimed that he uses the drug only to help him sleep - oh, and to give it away to young women who visited him in a rented flat for a 'party'.

Chalomish's co-accused, partner and former convicted drug-dealer, Nasir Abbas, who has now followed Montague Tigg's example and 'done a bunk', told the Court that the good Rabbi was so overcome with generosity for his fellow man - and women - that he put "[the drug] in a glass dish [before cutting it] with another substance, and anyone visiting [their flat] was free to help themselves."

Since Chalomish is a Rabbi, presumably he took pains to ensure that this mixture fulfilled the requirements of kashrut. Either that, or he simply didn't care as long as he was getting his rocks off.

Question for the Rabbi: Is it kosher to fellate someone?

Answer: Only if they've been circumcised first!

The fact that Rabbi Chalomish "...also had a substantial store of drugs, cocaine, and cash at his home address" does not demonstrate anything other than his complete integrity and also the fact that he is a worthy exemplar to his community.

The trial continues.

Muslim Murderers At It Again - And All In The Name of Religion!

2009-11-18T16:53:00.000Z

Today, the BBC have yet another sad report about the backward, barbaric, brutal butchers in Somalia lapidating a poor divorced woman to death for the so-called crime of adultery - and all in the name of their misbegotten, backward and thoroughly ridiculous religion.

According to reports, the woman was taken to the public grounds where she was buried up to her waist, then she was stoned to death in front of the crowds on Tuesday afternoon.

Naturally her boyfriend was spared her gruesome and inhumane death, as he was let off rather lightly with a mere 100 lashes. So much for the equality of women under Islam.

And all this in the name of their sick, misogynistic ~~religious~~ superstitious beliefs!

Mind you, anyone who seriously believes that Muhammad flew to Paradise on the back of a horse is capable of believing any nonsense whatsoever.

Fucking madmen all of them!

The Humanity of Islam

2009-11-06T18:32:00.003Z

Today a BBC report demonstrates the humanity that Islam is capable of exercising, for it states that in that shit-hole which is Somalia a man has been murdered by lapidation for adultery but his pregnant girlfriend is to be spared the same fate, though only until she gives birth to the bastard, whereupon her child will be wrenched from her and she will undergo the same inhumane butchery that her former lover did. According to an eyewitness, the poor wretch:

"... was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving."

Apparently this is the third time that someone has been put to death by this barbaric torture this year for adultery alone. One of these poor victims was a 13-year-old girl who, according to human rights groups, had actually been raped and had not, therefore, committed adultery by any sensible definition of that word. Not that these brutal Islamists are capable of applying sense, for if they were, they would have to acknowledge that their whole religion is based on nothing more than the ravings of lunatics.

Fuckwits all of them, not to mention barbaric, murderous scum too.

Not that the apologists for Islam are very forthcoming in condemning these butchering bastards for the inhumane atrocities they carry out in the name of their so-called 'god'.

If ever one needed any persuasion that 'allah' is anything but compassionate, all they need to do is to consider the atrocities carried out in 'his' name.

The humanity of Islam, indeed!

Perhaps they need reminding that actions speak louder than words.

Shock, Horror: Some Priests Tell The Truth!

2009-10-21T17:24:00.003+01:00

As a result of my regular claims that all administrants of religion are mendacious charlatans I was invited the other day to meet a coterie of priests who claimed that they spoke nothing but the truth, which they would demonstrate to me were I to visit them.

As I am unafraid of a challenge, and expecting nothing more than the usual specious nonsense allegedly substantiating the existence of the entity which religionists refer to as 'god', I attended the meeting.

How surprised I was, for these priests were completely frank with me and readily admitted what I have known ever since I was capable or thinking rationally for myself. 'Gods' (yes, plural, for thousands of them have been imagined by their competing inventors over the millennia), exist in the minds of their soi-disant believers only. Furthermore, those who claim to believe suffer from either psychological deficits or a cripplingly low intelligence, excepting only the majority of those who are administrants, as these are simply exploitative sociopathic manipulators of the others.

At least one has to acknowledge the candour of the clerics I met, even if their trade, based as it is on human exploitation, is truly vile. But then, as they readily admitted, it beats working for a living, though I dare say that drug-dealers, pornographers, pimps and other kinds of low-life sleaze-merchants can offer the same justification for parasiting off their host societies and at the expense of their victims.

Another Lying Prelate - Vainglorious Venner!

2009-10-21T09:00:00.001+01:00

So here he is in all his mendacious self-glorification, Dr Stephen Venner the out-going Bishop of Dover and Bishop in Canterbury. This vainglorious charlatan has gone on record in the 'Kent on Sunday' condemning the BBC Radio Kent's decision to drop the Thought for the Day religious programme from its Saturday slot.

According to this self-serving parasite and mendacious deluder of the the ignorant, the needy, the delusional and all those who are psychopathologically challenged, "All that is best [in society] comes from people of faith".

So I take it as read, Stevie, that you consider that the Twin Towers incident in September 2001 or the London Bombings in July 2007 - to name but two 'contributions' to society by "people of faith" - were something to applaud; after all, the perpetrators of those atrocities believed in the same so-called 'god' as you!

And then there is the matter of the homophobia, misogyny, and promulgation of superstitious nonsense which the organisation you belong to exemplifies. (Just to remind less knowledgeable readers, it was Stevie-boy here who broke down in tears as he told the General Synod of the Church of England in July 2008 that, "for the first time in my life I am ashamed" at its decision to ignore the misogynistic views of church traditionalists like himself by allowing the adoption of women bishops.)

Clearly, therefore, Stevie is not ashamed that he has spent a lifetime lying about the existence of his so-called 'god', despite no-one over the millennia ever having been able to produce a single scintilla of credible empirical evidence to support this make-believe entity's existence he claims to 'believe' in. But, hey, why let a little matter like proof trouble you, Stevie, when you can so readily ignore and egregiously disparage all the worthwhile contributions that atheists have made to society.

The measure of this man's megalomania and delusional psychopathy is exemplified by comments he made recently about his impending retirement:

"The time for us to bid farewell is several months away, and I know that in the meantime we shall continue to discover what God is doing among us, and to seek to join in."

I seem to recollect that Maggie Thatcher also used the royal 'we' and was roundly excoriated for it, but clearly Bish Vainglorious Venner suffers from the same overweening sense of self-importance.

As far as I'm concerned, Stevie, the sooner you go the better, as it is "people of faith" like you who have fomented and perpetrated much of the evil and horrors that mankind has endured over the millennia at your hands.

Women Are To Blame, Says Religious Leader

2009-04-16T18:51:00.004+01:00

So, the loonies have escaped from the asylum once again, though I don't suppose that the Saudi Arabian Muslim cleric, Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan, considers himself as mad, though he is undoubtedly completely stark-raving bonkers and a misogynist to boot.

According to this clownish cleric, allowing women to show both eyes peering from behind a niqab encourages them to be seductive, so he wants them to be forced to cover up one eye and thereby restrict their ability to drive good Muslim men into paroxysms of uncontrollable erotic fantasies and distract them from the teachings of Allah.

Well, apart from it being just plain wrong to blame women qua women for the actions of lascivious men, the proposal is clearly unworkable, since women with only one eye peering from their niqab could be accused of giveing men the 'come on' every time they blinked naturally.

A better suggestion for Sheikh al-Habadan to have made is that all Muslim women should be blinded in both eyes with a sharp stick so that they couldn't use those organs for seducing otherwise good Muslim men from the narrow path of the faithful.

Of course that would be unlikely to stop those wanton women from flaunting themselves seductively in other ways, so it might be better if the good Sheikh also suggested that they had both their tits carved off with a blunt scimitar and their vagina's stuffed full of broken glass, for surely no Muslim man would find them desirable then.

There is another way to address the problem of women leading men astray, however: cut the dicks of every Muslim man, starting with Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan!

And without the use on anaesthetic too.

A Quiz For Muslims

2009-04-15T17:35:00.006+01:00

Question: Where else would a 60 year old man be allowed to marry an 8 year old little girl? (NB: The clue is in the piccie).

Answer: In Saudi Arabia,the state in which the holiest of Muslim shrines is situate, of course. After all, it was good enough for Muhammad to marry a little girl, which is no doubt why earlier this year, the country's highest religious authority, the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Shaikh said that it was not against Islamic law to marry off young girls to lecherous old men who pay the children's families large dowries for the undoubted privilege.

But it's OK because it is Insha'Allah!

Despite an attempt by the girl's mother to have the marriage annulled, a court in Unaiza upheld the marriage but the judge said that that once the little girl reached puberty, she could ask for a divorce.

If it wasn't so fucking sick, it would be funny!

PS: Those who want more details can find them here.

The New Messiah Has Cometh - Haleweeja!

2009-04-14T08:18:00.008+01:00

Following on from my report the other day linking to Richard Dawkins' satirical expose of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, the BBC's religious affairs correspondent has now decided to redress the balance by singing the praises of Mr Mendacity. Those who are interested in sycophantic prose and Tony's sanctimonious platitudes can find the article here, but I quote this brief excerpt for those of you who can read only so much pap before feeling nauseated:

I'm really and always have been in a way more interested in religion than politics [said Tony, and he continued by saying that he is] really, really committed to finding a way of making religious faith relevant to the modern world".

But the most revealing remark of all was when BBC's correspondent went on to state that Blair had claimed that:

"...the secular world needs to understand religion."

Tony, the secular world does understand religion; religion is a mental disorder, just like schizophrenia or any other form of psychotic disorder.

Blair concluded the interview by handing out photographs of himself (one of which is reproduced above) with these prophetic words:

"This is not for me a 'this year and next year' project. This is a rest of my life project. So over time people will be able to see you in a different light."

Perhaps we should just grant you your wish and proclaim you as the new Messiah before nailing you to the cross like the(war)criminal you are, you ~~poor~~ rich (see footnote) and manipulative psychopathic buffoon?

Footnote: According to 'The Telegraph' 'Bunco' Blair is the most highly paid speaker on the planet, recently earning as much as £6,000 per minute for addressing a 2,000-strong audience in Manila, and his vast earnings could very well net him a staggering £80 million by the time he reaches retirement age in 10 years' time. Naturally, like the good Christian and would-be Messiah, Tone is giving it all away to the poor - NOT. I'm also willing to bet that our Tone, the good socialist that he is, is resorting to the legal practice of 'tax avoidance' to spare handing over too much of his wealth to the rest of us, even though his former Chancellor and current incumbent of his old office still refers to tax avoidance as if it is a synonym for the highly-illegal 'tax evasion'. Sauce for the goose, eh Tone?

Archbishop Praises Terrorist.

2009-04-12T09:32:00.003+01:00

According to the BBC, today, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will tell the congregation at Canterbury Cathedral:

"The present financial crisis has dealt a heavy blow to the idea that human fulfilment can be thought about just in terms of material growth and possession."

Williams will then tell his huddled flock of sheep that religion is the only way to achieve fulfilment, and gives this as a fine example:

"It's worth remembering that Paul of Tarsus joined the Christian community not as a well-meaning religious enquirer but as someone who had been the equivalent of a terrorist gunman, someone who had supervised the activities of a private militia devoted to abducting and imprisoning members of the Christian sect. He is a perfectly intelligible figure in the back streets of modern Beirut or Baghdad."

Presumably Williams means by this that religious communities should give support and succour to murderous terrorists and that they, in turn, should feel safe in seeking refuge under the holey umbrella (or should that be 'holy umbrella') of religion.

Don't you think that your exhortation constitute an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006, Dr Williams?

Why We Must Give Religion The Respect It Deserves.

2009-04-11T14:03:00.006+01:00

According to a recent article in the 'New Statesman'our quondam leader, Tony 'Baloney' B-liar said:

"Religion has never mattered more to the world than it does now."

Mr Mendacity went on to give his reason why:

"In this globalised world, we are more than ever interconnected, but we are also more uncertain. What were firm boundaries of race, culture and identity are becoming fluid. In such a world the involvement of religion becomes ever more crucial. It can either play a positive role, helping to deepen understanding and working for the common good, or it can be exploited to become destructive, emphasising difference and reinforcing distrust of the 'other'."

There follows paragraph after paragraph of mawkish prose in an attempt to justify Blair's own psychopathological need to 'do God', to use his own inimitable words, and why he thinks that it is important for the rest of us to give religion the respect (he thinks that) it deserves.

Normally, I would be happy to dissect Blair's empty rhetoric and expose it for the specious mumbo-jumbo it is, but this time Richard Dawkins has done it for me (and a far better job he has done of it that I could have). Dawkins' response can also be found in the 'New Statesman' but some of his best satire is reproduced here:

"...we need to understand and sympathise with the deep hurt and offence that a man can feel if we insult his traditional beliefs by trying to stop him beating his wife, or setting fire to his daughter or cutting off her clitoris (and please don’t let’s hear any racist or Islamophobic objections to these important expressions of faith). We shall support the introduction of sharia courts, but on a strictly voluntary basis – only for those whose husbands and fathers freely choose it."

To those of you who enjoy elegant prose, especially when it is satirical, I can do no better than direct you to Dawkin's piece in its entirety, the link to which is given above (or here for those who missed it).

But before you all rush off, let me just take issue with one of Blair's egregiously false statements:

"I set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation ...to make the case for religion as a force for good..."

Well, Tony, if you really wanted to do some good in the world (apart from promoting your own needy psychopathology and overblown self-esteem, that is) you would have set up a foundation to expose religion, ALL RELIGION, as the completely specious nonsense that it is. However, I suspect that you have always subscribed to the following words ascribed to Cardinal Caraffa (subsequently Pope Paul IV) for these demonstrate the only justification for religion apart from it being a means of controlling the masses by duplicitous exploiters, pathological manipulators and complete charlatans like yourself:

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur (the public wishes to be fooled, therefore let it be fooled)."

Unfortunately for you, Tony, and all the exploitative scum who hold some religious office, the public are becoming more and more aware of the fact the basis of all religion is based on nothing more than mumbo-jumbo and has no basis in objective fact whatsoever.

To paraphrase Georges Rey, Tony, at some level you are a liar, but then we all knew that.

Some Things Are Sacrosanct (To Some Atheists)!

2009-04-09T10:02:00.003+01:00

I am rather amused by the reaction of some atheists in a thread on the 'God Is For Suckers' site referring to the legalisation of 'gay marriage' in Vermont, USA . The thread commenced with a graphic of Batman and Robin kissing one another and a couple of commentators took exception to it, complaining that the graphic sullied the credentials of entities whom they admired and felt were deserving of unquestionable respect, apparently. (Alert readers will note that those who complained that Batman and Robin were somehow sullied by the merest suggestion that they were gay suggests that the complainers consider that the condition of homosexuality is somehow less worthy of respect than heterosexuality, which indicates a great deal about their true feelings on the subject. But, hey ho, it's not only theists who are homophobic, unfortunately, though they can blame their attitudes as 'religiously sanctioned', at least.)

Also lost on those complainers objecting to their imaginary heroes being 'sullied' with the suggestion of homosexuality was the fact that the site regularly uses pictures and graphics of other imaginary entities in a humorous, sarcastic, mocking or satirical way, despite the fact that it is known that these usages are offensive to people of a religious persuasion. So, as far as the complainers are concerned, it is OK for them to mock an imaginary creature called 'God' but don't anyone dare to do the same for the equally imaginary creatures known as Batman and Robin.

Strangely enough, when one commentator asked the complainers to explain why it is OK for them to mock the revered and respected objects of those foolish enough to claim to be religious but that one must not to mock Batman and Robin, thereby offending people like themselves who apparently imbue those imaginary creatures with some kind of misplaced reverence and respect, that commentator was met with vituperation and calumny by one of the Moderators on the site who goes by the pseudonym' Krystalline Apostate'.

One is left with the ineluctable conclusion that people like 'KA' are indistinguishable from those of a religious persuasion: both believe that imaginary entities they choose to support should be treated with respect and that their reputations should be unsullied and sacrosanct; they also appear to be closet homophobes. What a bunch of fuckwits.

Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of personal integrity and non-existent intellectual rigour, KA, but if you don't like this comment you can console yourself with the recollection that it was you who told me to fuck off back to my own blog and post my comments there rather than question your delicate sensibilities on GIFS.

One final thing, KA, if you don't like reading my comments here, you can take the advice you gave me and fuck off back to whence you came for you are simply another ignorant, foul-mouthed, mendacious and duplicitous prat, and there is truly nothing to distinguish you from the theists whom who pour excoriation on.

Batman and Robin are neither any more real than 'God' is, you delusional moron, and neither should they be free from mockery or satire.

Thanks for demonstrating what a buffoon you really are, Douglas. Little wonder you are a laughing-stock behind your back.

Thousands of Mulsims Pray the Wrong Way!

2009-04-05T20:26:00.003+01:00

According to a report on the BBC, some 200 mosques in Islam's holiest city, Mecca, point the wrong way for prayers as the mosques were not built precisely based on the qibla, the official alignment with the holy Kaaba shrine at the centre of Mecca's Al-Haram mosque. Apparently some worshippers are said to be anxious about the validity of their prayers - and so they should be, though not for the reason stated but because prayers to an imaginary magic entity in the sky are no more than a lot of hopeful wish-fulfilment and hot air. However, Tawfik al-Sudairy, Islamic affairs ministry deputy secretary, downplayed the problem, saying:

"In any case, it does not affect the prayers."

How right you are Tawfik, which just shows that you are not as credulous as the ignorant masses you are happy to exploit for your own benefit and self-aggrandisement.

Guffaw!

Good Stupid Muslim Women

2009-03-30T19:49:00.004+01:00

Picture says it all really. Except that if they really were Good Muslim Women they would not allow themselves to be photographed, since their religion forbids the making, or allowing to be made, images of "Allah's creations", and neither would they dare to show off their bare ankles, a flogging offence in Saudi Arabia to name but one progressive Muslim country.

Perhaps they're just another pair of religious hypocrites?

Still, I'm willing to bet that they'd tell you that they adopted their ridiculous apparel willingly and that they are delighted to make themselves totally subservient to their menfolk - and Allah, of course. Next they'd tell you that they deserved lapidation if they ever committed adultery (some chance whilst wearing a bed sheet permanently).

But fair enough, if that's how they wish to waste their lives, let them do so. But why here and not in some shithole of a medieval Muslim state where they belong?

Risible Religionist Rants Ridiculously

2009-03-30T10:14:00.002+01:00

Here he is again, Rowan Williams, the Arch-Whinger of Durovernum, head of the world-wide Anglican Communion.

According to 'The Telegraph' Williams bleated on to the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, that the BBC must not ignore it's Christian audience - despite it being an extreme minority and ignoring the fact thatthe majority of the population of the UK do not attend any form of religious service on a regular basis, if at all.

Apparently, Williams' intervention comes amid mounting concern among senior members of the Church of England that the BBC is downgrading its religious output and giving preferential treatment to minority faiths.

Unfortunately, as a public service broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to provide religious programmes. Which reminds me, since relgionists regularly claim that atheism is a 'religion', when will we see 'The Anti-Theist and Misoclere Society' getting its own slot on the BBC?

When relgionists provide indisputable empiric evidence that their so-called 'god' exists, that's when.

Guffaw!

Prosecuted For Telling Truth (About Islam)!

2009-03-30T08:56:00.003+01:00

This is Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, who made a 17 minute film entitled Fitna which demonstrated that the Qur'an motivates its followers to hate all who violate the Islamic teachings and argues that Islam encourages, among other things, acts of terrorism, anti-Semitism, violence against women, and Islamic universalism. Wilders can be seen talking about his film here.

For his trouble, a Dutch court held that Wilders was "inciting hatred and discrimination" and that "it is in the public interest to prosecute" him. Additionally, Wilders has received hundreds of death threats from Muslims - the issuing of which is a criminal offence under Dutch law, but no action has been taken against the perpetrators (surprise, surprise).

And to heap even more ordure on Wilders, the UK Government banned him from entering the UK on the grounds that his "presence in the U.K. would pose a genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society." The letter from the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, went on to tell Wilders that "your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security."

So there you have it folks, anyone who tells the truth about Muslims is (a) likely to be prosecuted in their own country, (b) refused entry into another, and (c) finally murdered by the criminally insane people that he righteously complains about.

The Loonies Have Taken Charge Of The Asylum!

2009-03-29T19:59:00.003+01:00

The end is nigh for atheists who dare to defend themselves from the constant attacks of religionists. According to Reuters last Thursday the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as it represents:

"...a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of [religious] adherents and incitement to religious violence"

Accordingly, criticising religion - especially the Muslim one - is considered to be a human rights violation. The resolution continued, which would actually be screamingly funny if it were not so outrageously untrue:

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

Unsurprisingly, this egregious piece of arrant nonsense was proposed by Pakistan on behalf of 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (amusingly their acronym is OIC, which sounds identical to the English slang word 'oik', meaning someone who is inferior due to their ignorance, and anyone who claims to 'believe' in 'God' is certainly demonstrating that trait).

Fortunately this is a non-binding resolution but it is clearly not the end of the matter for religionists in general and Muslims in particular are continually trying to stop anyone from voicing any criticism of their delusional religious beliefs and the atrocities against humanity which their adherents are continuing to carry out in the name of their respective religions.

Still, I suppose that it is heartening that Muslims are now trying to silence their critics by legal means, rather than simply murdering us in accordance with Allah's exhortations.

Good-riddance To Bad Rubbish

2009-03-28T09:33:00.003Z

This is the the Archbishop of Westminster and leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor who once complained that Christianity had been "all but vanquished" as the underlying guide to morals in Britain - and that at a time when the RC Church was actively protecting paedophiles in its midst and hiding war-criminals. Guffaw!

Now for the good news: the man who failed to grasp reality is about to retire. The bad news? Another mountebank, charlatan, exploiter of the needy and de facto delusional buffoon is about to be appointed in his place.

Allah Welcomes More Into Paradise

2009-03-27T20:57:00.002Z

According to the BBC, Allah, the munificent, the unimpeachable, the most wondrous, has today welcomed another 70 or so of his moronic supporters to join him in Paradise by the delicious expedient of having them blown-up by a bomb whilst they were preparing to worship his almightyness. Officials say the attack was a suicide bombing and the mosque has collapsed. Which poses the question: Does the suicide bomber merit greater rewards in Paradise than those of his victims - or do they all just qualify for the minimum of 70 virgins, 800 slaves, and a tent half the size of Saudi Arabia? Guffaw.

Top Prelate Tells Truth (At Last)!

2009-03-26T19:04:00.004Z

The ~~Archbishop of Canterbury~~ ArchBonzo of Durovernum, ~~Dr Rowan Williams~~Dr Rowan Atkinson (well, he is a comedian, after all, despite pretending to be the head of the world-wide Anglican Communion) has issued a dire warning that 'God' will not protect us from our folly because it would be 'unbiblical and unchristian' for 'Him' to do so. The ArchbBonzo of Mendacity and Stupidity gave his dire warning at a public lecture in York Minster yesterday - home to that other well-known mendacious psychopathological religious buffoon, John Sentamu and chief arse-licker to Williams (see here) - which has been reported on the BBC today.

According to the delusional lunatic Williams:

"God's faithfulness stands, assuring us that even in the most appalling disaster love will not let us go - but it will not be a safety net that guarantees a happy ending in this world."

Williams continued by warning that humanity will be gradually "choked, drowned, or starved by its own stupidity". However, he was then overcome by an inexplicable and entirely unaccustomed vein of complete honesty when he admitted that he could no longer in good conscience continue to dupe his psychologically needy flock with the egregious lie that there ever had been an entity called 'God', and that 'Jesus' had ever existed.

At that point, Williams awoke and realised that it had all been a horrible dream - until he found the naked altar boy lying beside him and the horrible truth dawned upon him once again. "I am a complete phoney," he opined,"and one day the world will realise the truth for themselves. God never existed, except in the minds of delusional psychopaths."

With that realisation Williams kicked the altar boy out of his bed and ordered a silver-salver breakfast.

Atheism Equals Religious Honesty!

2009-03-14T09:16:00.005Z

The National Secular Society has brought out a 'Certificate of Debaptism' which has been downloaded over 60,000 times since it became available online. Admittedly it is seen as a bit of a joke but the underlying principle is entirely serious. So much so that today the BBC has taken up the story and published it, though the report does add that:

The Church wonders aloud why, if atheists and secularists believe baptism is so meaningless, they are letting it upset them.

Nevertheless, they do supply the answer to the Churches' protestations by giving the last word in their report to John Hunt, the protagonist of the story who 'debaptised' himself:

"I think it's important that more people speak out and say they don't subscribe to the historic beliefs of the Church."

I would go further; not only is it important not to subscribe to the spurious superstitious and delusional 'beliefs' of religious people, but that one should challenge the organisations which support them with the fraudulent claims that the supernatural entity which they refer to as 'God' exists, or ever has done.

The fact remains that all so-called 'religious belief' is quantitatively indistinguishable from any other form of delusional psychopathology. Just because the ignorant, the superstitious and the psychologically needy have been with us for millennia is no reason for perpetrating the lie that is religion or giving the parasites who promulgate the fraud that religion represents succour and freedom from excoriation by honest people.

Which brings me back to the title to this piece: 'Atheism Equals Religious Honesty!' for you will certainly get no honesty from any religious organisation or soi-disant religious believer when it comes to addressing the lies which they promulgate and claim to 'believe' in, because their whole edifice of so-called 'belief' is based on a gross impairment of their inability to test objective reality.

RC Church Supports Paedophilia (Again)!

2009-03-07T21:14:00.003Z

This is none other than Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re who has defended the excommunication of the mother of a nine-year-old girl who conceived twin after being abused by her paedophile father, by the Brazilian Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho.

Also excommunicated were the doctors who operated on the little girl, despite the fact that they did so legally under Brazilian law which permits an abortion only on the grounds rape or health risks to the mother.

Even the President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has criticised the Archbishop roundly, but the latter has the egregious hubris to proclaim:

...the law of God was above any human law.

The Archbonzo went on to add:

Besides, if God had not meant men to rape children for our own pleasure, he would not have given us the equipment or desire to do so. Therefore, it must be part of God's law that we do so!

Nevertheless, the degenerates in the Roman Catholic Church demonstrated the extent of their merciful interpretation of God's law by not excommunicating the raped nine-year-old girl - probably because they were too busy queuing up to have a go at her themselves.

What a fucking sick religion and what fucking sick people inhabit the clergy.

There is no God, you fuckwits!

Nor is there any justification, legally, morally, or otherwise for your sick pronouncements.

You evil fucking bastards.

Proof That God Is Not Omniscient (If Any Was Needed)!

2009-03-07T19:53:00.004Z

Hi ~~fools~~ flock,

This is God speaking.

I just want you to know that I care and that I'm listening.

Unfortunately the power of prayer is unreliable, which is why I have opened up a new telephone hotline to enable you ~~imbeciles~~ to call me with your ~~petty~~ important issues that you want me to deal with.

The number to call from the UK is (00)31 644 244901, but callers from other countries will have to consult their international dialling code booklet for the appropriate prefix for The Netherlands where my trans-galactic office is situated for the moment (why should I have to do everything for you, you lazy sods).

Unfortunately, due to the pressure of work, I am not able to to take your calls personally, but you will hear a recording which states:

"This is the voice of God, I am not able to speak to you at the moment, but please leave a message."(but see footnote)

Some detractors and evil-minded atheist scum have proclaimed that the fact that I am unable to deal with everyone's telephone calls simultaneously proves that I am not omniscient, but that is to misunderstand what is meant by that term.The fact of the matter is that I chooses to limit my omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of my ~~loonie believers~~ creatures, as many modern theologians, such as John Polkinghorne will ~~stupidly~~ cheerfully attest.

Actually, truth be told, I'm not God, and it isn't my answer phone, though the number is real and does work (try it and see you ~~mugs~~ unbelievers).

In fact, the whole thing is the idea of Dutch artist Johan van der Dong of Grijpskerk in the Netherlands. Johan wants God to be reachable by everyone so people can leave Him messages. Meanwhile, Johan's psychiatrist, Aldo Van Sprinklees, has gone on record as saying that he is responding well to his new medication and that he should soon be fit for discharge from the secure unit where he is currently residing.

According to the BBC, critics say the project mocks those with religious beliefs.

As if such a thing was ever likely to happen.

Guffaw.

Footnote:

Unfortunately God is monoglottal, so this message is delivered only in Dutch, therefore, unless one speaks that rather unmellifluous language, one will have to take this writer's word for the translation into a civilised tongue.

Cardinal Sodoff Confesses: It's All A Joke!

2009-02-21T10:47:00.003Z

Cardinal Angelo Sodoff has at last come clean and confessed that God is just a joke and that the Church of Rome is no more than a perpetual confidence trick perpetrated on the gullible and needy in order to keep him and his kind in the luxurious lifestyle which they believe they deserve.

In his defence, however, Sodoff did explain that the Church of Rome is indistinguishable in its perfidy from the Anglican Communion, or any of what he called 'the other joke religions of the world', since all of them 'were at it', as he put it so pithily.

Nevertheless, it did come as something of a surprise to observe this 'Prince of the Church' sitting on his throne in St Peters whilst he told his audience that they had all been duped by a bunch of charlatans like himself 'ever since Jesus stood up and proclaimed that he was the Son of God'. As the Cardinal went on to say, 'If God had existed, then we could all claim to have been his progeny, since he allegedly created everything, but he didn't and he hadn't and we aren't, so there'.

At that point, once of the members of his Eminence's audience stood up and demanded, 'If you are saying that everything that you told us before was a pack of lies, why should we believe you now?' and immediately his voice was enjoined by the others, all of whom were making similar demands of the wily old prelate. Whereupon Angelo Sodoff stood up, towering above the clamouring masses in his 6-inch stiletto heels by Jimmy Choo, raised his bejewelled hands above their heads and solemnly proclaimed, 'Don't worry, my children, this was just a test of your faith, which I am glad to say you all passed. Now my acolytes will circulate amongst you with their begging-bowls and you will be expected to give generously!' And with that, Sodoff pirouetted whilst gathering his silken and lace robes around his loins, and minced off to find new sheep to sheer.

A True Believer?

2009-02-20T21:06:00.005Z

Shock, horror! Today Richard Dawkins, quondam Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University admitted to this reporter that he would readily believe in the entity which religious people refer to as 'God' if there was a single scintilla of credible evidence that such a phenomenon existed, or ever had done.

As if God needs Dawkins' endorsement, for anyone or anything which can create the entire Universe within a measly 6 human days needs the acknowledgement of a mere human being, even if he is an intellectual giant dedicated to the discovery and exposition of observable fact (and who conducts himself with decorum and integrity which is lost on his detractors). To believe otherwise is to demonstrate a hubris which is as monumental as the edifices of all the churches built in God's name.

Oh dear, it is truly sad the depths to which these fanatical and militant atheists will go in order to deny the truth of God's existence.

One only has to look at the suffering that God the creator of everything visits on the world and those of us in it for evidence of His benevolence towards us.

And why do you think, Mr Clever Atheist, does God the all-powerful allow evil to exist if it was not to drive us into His loving arms?

Next, you clever biologist you, will be telling us that it is impossible for a virgin to have given birth to God's Son, Jesus, when The Bible tells us that it was so. How do you know that doctors in the Ancient World hadn't discovered the technique of artificial insemination, Mr Clever-Dick Dawkins?

Frankly, I'll just bet that you are now trying to cover your bets seeing as how you are nearing the point where you shuffle of this mortal coil, but God won't be fooled, Mr Dawkins. Whilst the Devil might make Him look stupid from time to time, you won't, I'm afraid.

Besides, making 'God' look stupid should be left to the professionals - those who profess to believe in this non-existent delusional fantasy, particularly the ones who hold high office in that self-appointed clique called 'the clergy', who set themselves up as special interpreters and spokespersons on 'His' behalf.

Show me a true believer in 'God' and I will show you a psychopatholgically dysfunctional psyche, and those who are not psychopathic are not true believers but simply mouthing meaningless platitudes in the hope that they can make some capital out of it.

Who Says Christains Are Mad?

2009-02-20T20:16:00.002Z

Hi, I'm Charles V Danziger III.

When I told my psychiatrist that I believed that a tribe of magical two-headed dwarves lived under my bed and came out to play tricks on me only after I had fallen asleep, he diagnosed me as suffering from delusional psychosis and prescribed a course of risperidone to counter my psychotic behaviour.

On my next visit, however, I told him that I no longer believed in dwarves under my bed, but instead had come to believe in a magical giant who lived in the sky and who had created everything, including my disturbed fantasies, my psychiatrist asked me if this giant had a name. When I told him that the giant's name was 'God', the psychiatrist immediately fell upon his knees, raised both arms in supplication, begged mercy from my ephemeral, all-powerful giant, and pronounced me sane.

Actually he didn't, because they never do, but what he did say was that because my delusions were now fixated on a culturally sanctioned nonsensical and unsupported belief system, the psychiatric profession pusillanimously refused to categorise them as qualitatively undifferentiated from my earlier delusions regarding magic dwarves living under my bed. In short, my learned professional insisted, even though my proclaimed belief in 'God' was unsubstantiated in reality, his profession was prepared to overlook my latest delusional beliefs because to do otherwise would attract attacks from the powerful cadre of manipulators and extortionists who have set themselves up as the special and knowledgeable spokespersons for this so-called God that they promulgate to the psychologically damaged and needy like myself.

As if anyone would do such an underhand thing as to proclaim that God exists if He didn't!

As my priest said to me when I subsequently recounted all this to him, "Why do you think God sent those dwarves to torment you if it wasn't to direct you to Him?"

Why indeedy, Mr Psychiatrist!

So, now Father Aloysius and I spend lovely evenings together in mutual masturbation whilst he tells me wonderful stories about God and his magical son Jesus and how I'm now one of the chosen ones that will live for ever after in Never-Never-Land (which the ignorant refer to as 'Heaven') whilst all you unbelievers will simply die and cease to exist.

Who says Christians are mad?

Another Abominable Preacher, or Preacher of Abomination.

2009-02-20T08:55:00.005Z

The piece of human ordure pictured here is none other than Fred Phelps of the Western Baptist Church in the Yoo-Ess-Of-Ay, which is noted for it's rabid hatred of homosexuals and preaching that they should be expunged from the face of the Earth in their vicious "God's" name.

Fred, and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, intended visiting the UK to protest against a play called The Laramie Project being staged in Queen Mary's College, Basingstoke, about a man killed for being gay. As Fred said recently:

"God hates Gays, He tells us so in the Bible, and that's why he had His own Son crucified!"

Fortunately for us, HMG doesn't share Fred's repulsive homophobic views and has banned him and his misbegotten daughter from entering the UK. The UK Border Agency said it opposed "extremism in all its forms". A spokesman added: "Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities."

Not to be outdone, Shirley riposted with the accusation that the British government is "filthy" for thinking they have the power "to keep the word of God from coming into her borders". As for the Western Baptist Church, it's website proclaims:

"In merry old England they plan to further enrage the living God by putting on the farce known commonly as The Laramie Project.
We will picket them, and see if they actually believe those lies they tell about how tolerant and accepting Brits are."

Obviously these guys are so homophobic that they completely ignore all of Jesus' exhortations to 'love one another' - no doubt because they think it it smacks of 'gayness'. Guffaw.

Furthermore, since there is no credible empiric evidence that there is any such thing as 'the living God' that these sick and degenerate fuckwits in the Western Baptist Church - or any other fucking church, for that matter - continually rant on about, their claims as to the existence of such an entity are based on nothing other than their own self-delusion and psychopathological needs. In short, their so-called beliefs fail to meet the criteria of that which epistemologists and psychologists define as 'justified true belief', which makes them all delusional psychopaths.

Frankly, I think that the US authorities should ensure that members of the WBC are kept in a secure facility for the mentally insane and never allowed out in public. Furthermore, the medical team charged with their welfare should up the dosage of risperidone, as quite clearly they are all dangerously out of touch with reality and are a menace to the rest of us.

Is There Any Difference?

2009-02-20T08:05:00.003Z

The right-wing buffoon and crypto-fascist pictured is none other than Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson who has just been ordered out of Argentina otherwise they will expel him, according to the BBC (by the way, what is the difference between ordering someone out and expelling them?).

According to a recent interview given to Swedish TV, Dick 'The Prick' Williamson declaimed:

"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, is hugely against, six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler."

No doubt Wily Williamson was just trying to ingratiate himself with his boss and former member of the Hitler youth, Joey 'Ratsarse' Ratzinger, AKA Pope Benzedrine XVI, without appreciating that Josef doesn't like to be reminded of his misspent younger days when he enjoyed strutting around in that lovely black uniform and patent leather boots, kicking sand into the eyes of 7-stone weaklings and those with a Semitic stripe. Now Il Poopoo has ordered Williamson to recant, otherwise he'll revoke the Bishop's altar-boy shagging privileges, which has annoyed Tricky Dickie enormously.

"What's the difference," he bleated, "between denying that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and claiming that some supernatural prestidigitator called 'God' created the universe? Both are lies of the same magnitude!"

Ratfink Josef was less than impressed with Dicko's analogy, however. He was overheard muttering to some members of the Curia, "That's complete nonsense, for there is solid evidence that we , I mean the Nazis, did murder 6 million Jews, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that our make-believe 'God' exists!"

Which brings us back to the question being pondered by the Very Reprehensible Bishop in the picture above.

Qualitatively there is no difference; both assertions are the product of mendacity or delusion, but then that's the definition of religion.

Which Superstition Is More Ridiculously Risible?

2009-02-19T17:55:00.003Z

Some of the Christian wallahs that I have the misfortune of living amongst have poked fun and ridicule at a report on ABC to the effect that a group of Indian tribals have married off one year old Sangula Munda to a female dog in eastern India in a bid to prevent his predicted death at the hands of a tiger. Some of the criticisms raised by these Christian supremacists who are, incidentally, high in the ranks of the Anglican clergy, are that these poor people are 'backward', 'superstitious' and/or 'ignorant', despite the fact that the ceremony was held at a Hindu temple and was conducted by a Hindu priest with all the rituals observed at traditional weddings, including a dowry for the canine bride. And this in a week when that Arch-Bozo John Sentamu (see here) claimed that Christains were the embodiment of 'charity and compassion'. Guffaw! Frankly, there is absolutely no qualitative, logical, scientific, or psychological difference between the nonsense believed in by a Hindu priest, the 'group of Indian tribals', or the clergy and flock of the Anglican Communion - or Christians in toto - so the criticism by my so-called Christian neighbours is not only completely misplaced but totally egregious in the extreme.

In short, all religious belief is based on backwardness, superstition, ignorance, and psychological neediness, and none of it has any underpinnings of logic or empiric evidence to substantiate it; it is, by definition, simply based on 'faith' - i.e. the hope that things are as one would like them to be, and not as they really are - the power of self-delusion, and a complete willingness to shun critical analysis of the entirely spurious claims made by religious adherents.

Marrying a child to a dog is no more ridiculous than the Christian claims that a non-existent person called 'Jesus' fed 5000 people with a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread, or that he was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead - to name but some of the nonsense put about in this non-existent person's name.

Neither does it explain why these Christian fascists like to claim that their particular so-called 'god' is any more real than any of the other 4,536 known 'gods' that mankind has invented over the millennia.

For Christians the answer to that is simple: all the other 4535 'gods' are imaginary, as only theirs is the 'real deal'.

Oh dear, I'm going to have an apoplexy laughing myself sick at that one.

Sentamu: Christians are regarded as 'mad' by society.

2009-02-18T09:31:00.003Z

According to The Telegraph today Arch-Bozo John Sentamu, pictured, claims that society considers Christians to be mad, but the reasons he gives are not the real ones, since few if any Christians I have ever encountered are motivated by the 'charity and compassion' Sentamu claims to be the mark of one of his delusional flock of sheep.

In fact, any member of society who is intellectually honest enough and not so psychopathologically dysfunctional that they are not willing to admit the truth should be prepared to admit that people who believe in non-existent supernatural entities are mad, whether they give those entities grand names such as 'God' or facetious ones such as 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster', for there is no difference in their psychological states; they are at best delusional and at worst seriously mad.

So, which are you, John Sentamu?

Or perhaps you are just the third kind of so-called Christian? One of those who simply professes the faith in order to exploit the weaknesses of others for your own self-aggrandisement and self-promotion?

Meanwhile, it's about time that more honest people spoke out and put you and your lot in their place, for all religious faiths are fundamentally just a means of enslaving and exploiting the masses by those who simply enjoy manipulating others.

Nazi Joe Speaks Out ( Without Thinking)!

2008-12-23T20:42:00.002Z

According to Joe Ratsarse, quondam member of the Hitler Youth, and currently masquerading as Pope Benedict XVI in his annual Xmas address to the Curia:

"The distinction between male and female is innate...it is God's will...and anyone who does not live according to God's will is as great a threat to mankind as global warming!"

So all you poofs, trannies, sex-changers, and other forms of disgusting deviant transgendered folk are as threatening to the human race as global warming and are an vile abomination to God.

Presumably the Roman Catholic clergy will now eschew the wearing of their sumptuous frocks, and Pope Joe will be leading by example (according to the Vatican, the frock he is wearing in the piccie cost 173,000 euros - excluding the jewelllery).

However, the Vatican were quick to jump to Joey's defence, saying that he was only saying what he believed, and that we had no right to criticise him for doing so.

Presumably, therefore, the Vatican will allow me the same privilege when I say that Joey Ratsarse is a fucking ignorant psychopathological bigoted fuckwit and that the ordure which he spouts defiles the universe.

Oh, and if this so-called 'God' of theirs is listening - he's a fuckwit too for allowing Joey to be his spokesperson.

Guffaw.

The Stink of Zen

2008-11-11T20:22:00.005Z

Recently I encountered a rock-musician, songwriter, and gender dysphoric who goes by the soubriquet of Gloria. Now Gloria is clearly so disturbed by his general psychological condition that he continually makes remarkable claims about his talents, knowledge, qualifications, the 'famous people' he has met and, in particular, his deep and special knowledge of Zen. As evidence of his superior knowledge and experientiality of Zen, Gloria claims that he 'is an ordained Zen priest' and that he has 'passed the first 200 koans'. Furthermore, he claims that his advancement in Zen had been endorsed by words from the mouths of half-a-dozen of the foremost modern Zen masters whose names he was happy to recite as having personally witnessed his enlightenment. Strangely enough, none of those Zen masters had had the foresight to complete the customary paperwork which always accompanies the rituals evidencing one's affirmation, ordination, and enlightenment.

Frankly, anyone who claims to have attained enlightenment because they have allegedly 'passed the first 200 koans' is a complete phoney who demonstrably understands absolutely nothing about Zen. In fact, that type exemplifies what Lin-Chi (died 866CE, one of the leading lights in the eponymous school which is still extant in Japan), called 'spiritual dilettantes', since they are people who cannot tell truth from falsehood, grasping from non-grasping, obsession from enlightenment, and he concluded that they are just people who have simply left one social group and entered another, but that they have no real understanding of Zen whatsoever.

Strange, too, that Gloria appears completely unaware of the other main, yet ancient, school of Zen extant today in Japan, namely Soto, which lays no importance on the study or 'passing' of koans. Now, if the accomplishments of practitioners of Soto Zen are to be admitted - and Rinzai masters do see Soto masters as equally accomplished as themselves - then it should be obvious even to complete phoneys like Gloria that claiming to have 'passed' a large number of koans is completely meaningless and quite contrary to the spirit of Zen, whatever school one follows.

What's even more amusing about Gloria's ignorance about Zen is that he is completely unaware of the fact that when the Rinzai temples were set up in Kamakura in the 13th century to train the samurai in Zen, the samurai were generally so completely ignorant of Indian and Chinese Buddhist history, culture, writings etc., that the Zen masters had to invent shikin, or 'on the instant' Zen, and even ki-en Zen (Zen adapted to the pupil), so that the samurai could experience what Zen was about. Neither shikin nor ki-en Zen involved the elaborate study of koans - if koans were brought up at all - yet there is no doubt that many of the samurai became enlightened, despite not studying or 'passing' koans . Thus, even the Rinzai school of Kamakura demonstrated that the study and 'passing' of koans are not necessary prerequisites for attaining enlightenment. Consequently, anyone who boasts about the number of koans they have studied and allegedly 'passed' is as far away from an understanding of Zen as the Earth is from the furthest reaches of the Universe. Or, as the ancient Zen verse has it:"One ten-thousand of an inch and Heaven and Earth are set apart!"

For Gloria the stink of Zen is clearly a heady perfume, but for those of us who are just a little more knowledgeable, it is a putrescence.

The Saintliness of Hypocrisy

2008-09-20T08:11:00.005+01:00

According to the apologists for the Roman Catholic Church and the Anti-Semite Brigade (with apologies for the tautology), the soon-to-be-sainted Pope Pius XII was a saviour of the Jews during World War II. According to an article in 'The Telegraph' today, the current Pope, Benedict XVI (himself a former Nazi), maintains that new research shows that his predecessor

"...spared no effort, wherever it was possible, to intervene [for Jews] directly or through instructions given to individuals or institutions in the Catholic Church"

Benny XVI continued with his peroration of excuse for Pius' public silence regarding the atrocities committed to the Jews by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy with this:

"[Pius had to work] secretly and silently [to] avert the worst and save the highest number of Jews possible."

Then Benny went on and cited a meeting Pius had in the Vatican in November 1945 with 80 death camp survivors who ”thanked him personally for his generosity”, as if Pius' "generosity" merited thanks per se. Furthermore, even if all 80 of those survivors owed their lives directly to the intercession of Pius himself - an event even more unlikely than the existence of this entity that the Roman Catholic Church refers to as 'god' - the numbers are insignificant given the Pontiff's position compared to the thousands of Jews saved by other, less-powerful, ordinary people who actually put their own lives on the line in doing so, unlike anything Pius ever did (allegedly).

Incidentally, Benny fails to appraise us how many of those 80 survivors were actually Jewish, but given the general anti-Semitic stance of the RC Church, I wouldn't be surprised in none of them was.

Truly Pius XII is a ~~hypocrite~~ saint.

Next, we'll be hearing how Benny Ratsarse only joined the Hitler Youth in order to run a resistance organisation against the hated Nazi regime and that he too is worthy of sainthood.

United in hypocrisy, the pair of them, but then only a hypocrite or a delusional psychopath could profess to believe any of that risible mumbo-jumbo that the Roman Catholic Church espouses.

Why They Don't Want Women To Spoil Their Fun!

2008-07-08T10:18:00.003+01:00

According to the BBC, some 1300 male clergy at the Church of England's General Synod had threatened to leave the Church if safeguards were not agreed to reassure those in the CofE who objected to the consecration of women bishops.

The picture tells us why.

Some senior churchmen admit privately that "at least 40% of the clergy are gay", and nearly 100% of the clergy are misogynists.

After all, "God" doesn't need a woman, so it can't be natural to be subservient to one, can it?

BTW, the picture is not meant to suggest that paedophilia has anything to do with homosexuality per se. Gays are not child molesters.

Fake Priest In Vatican

2008-07-06T09:07:00.002+01:00

The BBC carries a report today that a fake priest has been discovered in the Vatican.

What is so surprising about this latest story is that it was considered newsworthy at all.

All priests in the Vatican - and everywhere else too - are complete phonies peddling bogus nonsense and risible mumbo-jumbo to ignorant, superstitious, imbecilicly credulous and psychologically damaged dolts who do not have the moral fibre to face reality without the false crutch of religion.

Now there is a story that is newsworthy.

Shock, Horror: Gafcon Exposed For What It Really Is - Hypocrisy!

2008-06-23T23:00:00.003+01:00

After my scoop yesterday regarding the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon), a snapper managed to catch The Reverend Doctor Immanuel Di Lombrosi, Bishop of Liguria, and his close circle of ~~pederasts~~ colleagues indulging in some after conference frolicks. When I contacted the Bishop-prick today to ask them for a comment, they were naturally reticent to go on record. However, Monsignor Di Fratelli was prepared to be quoted. "Fuck off," he said, though I'm not sure if that was an invitation to join in their sordid little practices or not.

Is it significant that the crozier the Bish is holding is brown, do you think? Or could that be priestly ordure adhering to the shaft?

On that subject the Monsignor had no comment, and he walked away with a peculiar shuffling gait, rather like he was suffering from a particularly bad case of haemorrhoids.

Back To Basics - But Only When It Suits.

2008-06-22T20:13:00.005+01:00

This is a picture of Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian's first openly gay bishop.

The fact that he is gay doesn't bother me in the slightest, though I have difficulty accepting that an honest man who is not suffering from delusional psychosis can really believe in the superstitious, supernatural, mumbo-jumbo and arrant nonsense that is the reality of religious so-called "belief" - belief, that no psychologist or epistemologist could possibly classify as "justified true belief".

However, the fact that Bishop Robinson is gay exercises the Anglican Communion to the point of self-destruction (good for you, Gene, perhaps you're an undercover atheist at heart, as Professor Georges Rey maintains).

As the BBC reports today,

"The rift in the Anglican Communion - superficially over homosexuality - has been widening steadily ever since the ordination by its American wing of the openly-gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003...Three hundred traditionalist bishops and archbishops - who believe that the Bible outlaws active homosexuality - are staging what is in effect a rival meeting to the Lambeth Conference, the 10-yearly gathering[in the highly symbolic site of Jerusalem] of Anglican bishops from all over the world

Typical of the buffoons, mountebanks, charlatans, and self-aggrandising despots in attendance at this Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) is he Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi - who is boycotting the Lambeth Conference - and who said his wish was to emulate the first Christians.

Orombi is typical of the Gafcon traditionalists, who have gathered in Jerusalem to demand that the Communion as a whole - including the Americans - go back to the stricter reading of the Bible they say would have applied in the early history of the Church which was born in Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago.

Funny then that I don't hear Orombi advocating the return of black people to slavery and subservience to the white man - both of which were policies supported in the not too distant past by a "stricter reading of the Bible".

Neither do I hear him or his traditionalist colleagues demanding that any of the injunctions in Leviticus apart from Chapter 18:22 be enforced on all members of the so-called Communion.

Presumably, also, these phonies and mountebanks want all aspects of science teaching that are not in literal accordance with the so-called "inerrant words of God" as set out in Genesis 1 to be abolished.

In short, Orombi and his gang are just another bunch of self-seeking, self-promoting, self-aggrandising, manipulative, homophobic swindlers, but then that is typical of all religious types who are not certifiable as suffering from delusional psychosis.

Question: Why is it that it takes an atheist to point out that religious people in general, and their clerics in particular, are the least likely people to adhere to a "stricter reading of the Bible" but choose only to parrot the sections which suit their particular prejudices and predilections?

Answer: Because the Bible is a complete lie, from beginning to end, and those people who claim to "believe" it are complete liars - or else they are insane.

Meanwhile, I hope that Gene Robinson doesn't give in to this bunch of homophobic trash meeting in Jerusalem as he has as much right to hold office in the church as any of them, as they all believe in fairy-tales.

Bleating Christian At It Again (Lying, That Is)!

2008-06-07T08:44:00.004+01:00

Here we go again, that carefully coiffed charlatan, Rowan Williams, the Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum, is claiming that the Gordy Broon's Government is not giving sufficient preference to the Church of England, according to his preface to a highly-biased report published by the Christian special-pleading group, the Von Hugel Institute (situate at St Edmunds' College, Cambridge), and entitled "Moral, But No Compass". N.B., the title is an oblique reference to Broon's own recent claim that his religion (Church of Scotland) and dour Presbyterian upbringing, has given him a 'moral compass' which guides him at all times.

One of the most ridiculous criticisms that the report had to say about the Government was this:

"Every participant in our study from the Church agreed that there was deep 'religious illiteracy' on the part of the Government."

Naturally, neither the manipulative mountebanks who wrote the report, nor the charlatan Dr Williams explain what is meant by 'religious illiteracy'. Hardly surprising, really, since it is no more a personal or intellectual failure to be 'religiously illiterate' (whatever that is supposed to mean), than it is to be 'astrologically illiterate', or 'fortune-telling illiterate', or un-knowledgeable regarding the contents of the ancient scribblings about any of the other superstitious nonsense and make-believe that is passed off by proclaimed "believers" as empirical fact. However, it is egregious in the extreme for the soi-disant Christians behind this report - or for any other religious movement, for that matter - to suggest that one can be moral only if one adheres to the minutiae of their particular delusional and psychopathological religious view of the world. How dishonest of them to keep braying that old calumny and lie, but then one can hardly expect religious promulgators to demonstrate any personal integrity or academic rigour, or to have any regard for fact, since they have never, over the millennia, been able to produce a single shred of empirical evidence proving their claim that their particular "god" exists, never mind being able to evidence any of the spurious claims that they make for this supernatural and non-existent entity.

Frankly, Gordy Broon's so-called 'socialist' government does indeed merit serious criticism, since all he and his predecessor, that other great soi-disant 'man of faith', Tony B-liar, have done little but bankrupt this country, swindle their supporters, and line their own pockets whilst simultaneously stroking their own grossly distorted egos. However, it is a complete fabrication and a downright libel for Christians to accuse either Brown or Blair of "religious illiteracy". Not only have this pair of megalomaniac buffoons done more to increase the role of faith in public life - they are both committed to increase the number and funding for 'faith' schools, for example - than any other Prime Minister in living memory, but they are both, by their own admissions, deeply religious. Thus, the report is little more than a tissue of lies put out with the intention of preying on the guilt and neediness of religious people but, hey, what's new, as anyone who has so much as dipped into the so-called "Holy Bible" can confirm for themselves. Not that those who suffer from "religious illiteracy" would know that.

In short, all these Christian special pleaders really want is to stem the decline of their own power and prestige. Instead of appointing a "Minister for Religion", as the report demands, the government should take all steps to secularise all the organs of state and to ensure that religion has no direct input whatsoever in our daily lives.

Religious "belief" is psychopathological belief, and the sooner our establishment has the moral and intellectual courage to come out in the open and say so, the better. In the meantime, if we cannot consign all self-proclaimed religious "believers" to lunatic asylums, let us at least confine them to their homes and places of worship and hear no more from them.

As for religious people having morals, well all I can say that there is little empirical evidence of that.

Education: A Weapon Against Ignorance.

2008-05-31T19:00:00.004+01:00

At least, that's what Ed Balls, the Labour Government's illustrious "schools secretary"(sic) is quoted by The Guardian as having said yesterday in the Times Educational Supplement. Balls was writing in the TES to explain the Government's latest asinine policy, which is to send British-born Imams into schools to lead citizenship lessons to give a counter view to the "al-qaida version" of Islam. Apparently, these clerics would be vetted to ensure they do not hold radical views, which can mean only that they do not hold the Qur'an as the immutable words of "God, since much if not most of the exhortations, instructions and orders contained in it are what many would consider extreme per se and radical to a fault.

According to Balls:

"A very small number of young people of school age may already be at risk of being drawn into criminal activity inspired by violent extremists. Extremists of every persuasion tend to paint the world as black and white ... exploiting fears based on ignorance. Education can be a powerful weapon against this."

Pity that our so-called "schools secretary" (sic) doesn't appreciate that if education did its job correctly in the first place, it would result in pupils being trained to develop the intellectual equipment which would enable them to comprehend that all religion is completely indistinguishable from ignorance, superstition, fairy tales, make-believe, and delusions

In short, that so-called religious "belief" represents, and is a manifestation of, the psychopathological needs of its adherents, and that religion should have no place in our public life whatsoever.

Heavenly Rewards, For Men Only!

2008-05-31T07:46:00.004+01:00

According to the celebrated translation of the Qur'an by NJ Dawood , sura 56 verses 12- 39 promise that the rewards in Paradise for those who have earned Allah's grace and favour, will be as follows:

"They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds... We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand..."

Now whilst there is no actual mention in the Qur'an of the number of virgins allotted in Paradise to these faithful men who have served Allah, it is specifically stated that 72 virgins will be the "Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise" in Hadith 2687 of the collection of the sayings of Muhammad gathered by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE) . The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) :

"The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

These two places were, respectively, a suburb of Damascus and Yemen, and they lie approximately 1,500 miles apart, which suggests that either Paradise is a very big place, or else that there are few inhabitants there, especially when one recollects that a dome of a width of 1,500 miles is merely "the smallest reward" for those who attain entrance to this imaginary place.

It is also notable that whilst the carnal and lustful desires of men of the faith are catered for, women are not accorded the same consideration - unless, of course, they are to take consolation by being penetrated by the eternal, rock-hard erection that men are promised according to the Qur'anic commentator Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), who wrote:

"Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected [to Paradise] never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [note the discrepancy in numbers] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas."

Seems rather one-sided and, frankly, misogynistic to me, but then any religion that instructs a man to beat his wife with a stick when she does not please him undoubtedly is just that. As Sura 4:34 has it:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Seems to me that Islam treats women as anything other than equal to men, whether on Earth or in "Heaven".

Maybe it is about time that Muslim women followed the example of their Christian counterparts whose loss of loss of "faith and piety" has been blamed for the steep decline in Christian worship, as it was those very freedoms from superstition and male-enforced control and domination which enabled women to take their rightful place in this world - as equals to men.

Mad Tony Finally Cracks Up

2008-05-29T22:35:00.003+01:00

According to the BBC, Mad Tony Blair, our quondam Illustrious Leader and Chief Baloney Merchant, has finally completely cracked up and demonstrated to everyone who has a scintilla of intelligence that he is indeed a raving lunatic. As of now, our Tone is going to dedicate his paltry life to uniting the world's religions in some Jesus loving crusade against the ungodly amongst us.

According to Tone, religion can cure malaria and extreme poverty, so expect him to start doling out the £12,000,000 to the poor he has earned since having the decency to step down from ~~running~~ ruining the UK (BTW, Tone, like you I bank at Coutts, so a quiet little donation into account number 382146717 would be appreciated).

This coming Friday, Tone is launching his "faith" foundation in New Yoik - presumably he thinks that the citizenry of that country will be more appreciative of his latest ~~venture~~ folly, since they are what his master, George Dubya Bush, called "the most religious Nation on Earth" when addressing the World Economic Forum in Egypt recently. Not to be outdone by Bush, Tony Baloney declared:

"Faith is part of our future, and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalisation work."

What a fucking mendacious and duplicitous, psychopathological prat you really are, Tone - as if we didn't know it all along. Or are we supposed to forget that Saddam didn't have "weapons of mass destruction that could hit the UK within 45 minutes", to mention perhaps your most blatant and egregious lie?

Actually I'm wrong. Mea culpa, Tone. Your most blatant and egregious lie is that there is a "God", since there is even less evidence to substantiate that claim than the one you made about the late lamented Saddam and his WMDs.

I hope every one of your days is filled with misery, you insincere fucking hypocrite, and that you wither and die horribly with the knowledge that your non-existent, so-called "god" can't save you .

Addendum: Actually, next to Tone's claim that this "God" of his exists, despite no-one over the millennia ever having been able to produce the tiniest shred of empirical evidence to substantiate that spurious claim, his other grand lie is that he is a "socialist", since all he's ever done is to rob the poor to fund rich bastards like himself and his uncharming damsel, Cherie, of letterbox-mouth fame.

Pair of phonies, both of them. No wonder they were welcomed into the Roman Catholic Church.

Bleating Bishop Blubbers Bullshit

2008-05-29T07:51:00.006+01:00

According to the Daily Telegraph, in the new right-wing ~~rag~~ mag, Standpoint - its mission statement, according to The Independent, is to "defend and celebrate" Western civilisation in the post 9/11 era - the Bleating Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, blubbers that the "social and sexual" revolution of the 1960s has led to a steep decline in the influence of Christianity in this country.

Good to hear that the decline in Christianity had nothing to do with the fact that people have become better able to comprehend that religion is entirely bogus and sham, based on nothing other than the needy psychopathology of shallow inadequates, the chronically delusional, and those who wish to manipulate other for their own self-aggrandisement and self-promotion.

Naszir-Ali continues his petty little tirade by accusing his fellow prelates of failing to resist this decline in their own power and prestige, and this attack comes just days after his previous one accusing the Church of England of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

Without Christianity, Nazir-Ali claims, Britain would never have become a global empire, and that we would have remained a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes". If he thinks seriously that we are anything other than a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes" today, then it shows just how totally out of touch with reality he really is - as if we didn't already know that from his delusional "belief" that this so-called "god" of his exists objectively.

The risibilities continue with Naizir-Ali siding with the unnamed academic who lays the blame for the loss of "faith and piety among women" for the steep decline in Christian worship. How dare those stupid women! Don't they realise that Nazir-Ali's "god" created them to be entirely subservient to men? How dare those ungrateful wretches use their intelligence to see religion for what it really is - a con-trick played by unscrupulous charlatans like Nazir-Ali on the week and needy amongst us. And what about the implication for men of Nazir-Ali's support for the academic's ridiculous claim? Men, it would seem, didn't have the ego-strength and intellectual equipment to eschew religion unless women had already done so, therefore it is all the fault of women that men have also been leaving churches in droves. Do I smell religion's familiar stench of misogyny here?

Not content with blaming women for the decline in Christianity, Nazir-Ali then turns on Marxists and blames it all on them, for it was Marxist students who encouraged a "social and sexual revolution" to which liberal theologians and Church leaders "all but capitulated".

"It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place."

How strange is it not, that so many of the atheists I have ever encountered were anything other than Marxists, but then we mustn't forget that the Bleating Bishop is writing for a new right-wing rag, and that his intended audience like to call everyone who does not support their views "Marxist", irrespective of their actual political and social affiliations.

Another of Nazir-Ali's objectionable implications is the familiar bleat uttered by his kind that only by being a Christian can one be a decent and moral person, and he even claims that all such values stem effectively from Christianity alone. What absolute bunkum, but then Nazir-Ali is a snake-oil salesman, after all, and would be more at home addressing the public from a fairground stall in Barnum's Circus than from a church pulpit.

Incidentally, at the time of writing this, there were 93 comments on the Daily Telegraph's blog on Nazir-Ali's article, and all but 1 of them was favourable to him and what he espoused, but whether that indicates real support for his views or simply reflects the right-wing attitude of that newspaper's readership, I'll leave that for you, dear reader, to decide for yourself.

Addendum: Since writing the above, I have found this interesting critique of Natzi-Ali which condemns him far more effectively than I have. Enjoy.

Science versus Religion, or the Psychopathology of Faith.

2008-05-27T17:57:00.006+01:00

As you can see, the above flow chart is an accurate diagram of how science works. An idea or an hypothesis is posited, then tested experimentally. If the experimental evidence doesn’t accord with the hypothesis, then most scientist will make another run or two at it just in case something was wrong with the experiment. But if a number of experiments don’t confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis is abandoned or modified and the experiments start again. If the evidence does confirm the hypothesis, then a new and useful piece of knowledge has been added to the sum of knowledge. That is science.

Now, compare the flow chart for religion:-

Notice the difference?

Muslim Morons At It Again!

2008-04-21T21:44:00.002+01:00

Yes, folks, it's true, for according to the BBC today, "Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth."

Aye, 'course it is, and the Moon is made of green cheese, and the inmates really are running the lunatic asylum.

But does anyone in authority outwith the would-be Caliphate raise a voice of dissent at these ridiculous assertions?

No, because (a) religions are held to be exempt from criticism per se, despite the fact that all religious belief is truly psychopathological, and (b) anyone who has the temerity to criticise the repressive nonsense that is Islam risks being murdered by some of its adherents who believe that they will be rewarded in a non-existent place called "Paradise" for committing homicide in the name of their spurious "god".

Next, they'll want us to believe that it's OK for a man to beat his wife with a stick if she disobeys him.

Or that adulterers should be killed by lapidation.

It would be excruciatingly funny if it wasn't so egregiously sick.

Archbishop Still In Denial

2008-02-09T08:55:00.000Z

Is Rowan Williams, the artistically coiffed Archbishop of Canterbury, any nearer to recognising the truth?

Not only is there no "God" , but many of his own flock consider that he is not the man to be leading the Anglican World-wide congregation.

Nevertheless, the man is sufficiently hubristic to insist that he was correct in advocating that our law should take account of religious beliefs and even extend the concessions already granted to theists. A visitor to his website will find that this duplicitous man is still trying to justify his position with more egregious nonsense of the same ilk:-

"[He claims that his core intention was] to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state"

Well here's one right granted to a religious group that I'd like to tear out, not merely tease out, namely the fact that the Archbishop and his 25 fellow Bishops have the right simply by virtue of their position in the Church of England to sit in our second chamber and directly influence the passing of legislation so that it accords with their particular religious views.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before Williams will be adding his voice to that of the Muslim clerics who want the same privileges that have been extended to the Church of England, so that Imams qua Imams will also sit in the Lords. After all, that way they will be in a better position to shape our laws to suit the Islamic religion and bring its some of its adherents nearer to their dream of building a world-wide caliphate.

I wonder, though, why it is that those Muslims living in the UK who are so desirous of living under Sharia don't emigrate to one of the avowed Muslim countries where they will find themselves more in accord with the way of life practised there? Admittedly, few Muslim women used to the rights and freedoms available to them in the UK would care to exchange that for a life in Saudi, Iran, or Afghanistan, to name but a few examples, but many of men would love it, for it would not only legitimise but increase their power and control over women.

The Penny Drops, But Not Loudly Enough.

2008-02-08T19:06:00.001Z

Following my earlier story about the mad prelate Rowan Williams, the Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum, it seems that has has undergone a brief flash of insight and realised that he is completely out of touch with the majority of people who live in this country. Apparently, Williams is allegedly shocked by the response that his ignorant and ill-consider advocacy of the adoption in the UK of aspects of Sharia and that these should supersede our own juridical traditions.

According to the BBC, Williams is overwhelmed by what is described as the "hostility of the response" to his remarks and is allegedly in a "state of shock" (and I thought that they had dispensed with electro-convulsive therapy in our professional psychiatric institutions, but perhaps that other psychiatric institution known as the Church of England still employs them). However, why Williams should be upset is a mystery, for he spoke with almost total ignorance of the following facts:-

Though so-called Sharia Law has as its origin "the inerrant words of God", there is no single version of Sharia applied throughout the Muslim world, since the Imams who hand down their judgements interpret the Qu'ran and the Hadith according to their own persuasion and precedent.
Sharia law treats men and women differently, even with regards to the subject of divorce which Williams seemed to have in mind, as a women has a far harder task of obtaining equal treatment to that of her husband when she wants a divorce, so Sharia is essentially discriminatory, unequal, divisive and sexist, not to mention that many of the punishments it imposes are barbaric - a fact that Williams himself recognises - and all these things are matters which we in this country have fought long and hard to remove from our society.
Whilst the overarching British juridical system has been developed and moulded over centuries - admittedly with the interference of the established churches here - the law, whether in Scottish or English law - remains secular and is meant to be applied to all, irrespective of their religious persuasion or lack of it, position, rank, or whatever their unique claims are. The penalties for breaking our laws are man-made ones, not those allegedly ordained by some imaginary entity called "God", though no doubt Williams would like to see us revert to the situation where ecclesiastical courts ran all our affairs once again, but we have long since refused to accept the dominance of religion and its quondam power over our lives.
There is no valid justification per se for people of specific religious persuasions being treated differently under the law than the rest of us and for Williams to suggest that they should be given such privileges as of right is simply wrong. Admittedly our law has made such concessions - for example, Sikhs are excused from wearing a crash-helmet whilst driving a motor-bike because their turbans are a religiously imposed dress-form whilst any non-Sikh without a helmet is charged and prosecuted - but when this happens it simply represents bad law which causes much resentment.

Actually, I suspect that the real reason behind Williams' affront to the nation yesterday was to pander to those Muslim clerics who have been calling on him to discipline the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, for speaking out the other week pointing out that Muslims had turned parts of Britain into no-go areas for non-Muslims. Despite the fact that Nazir-Ali backed up his claims with evidence, it is considered by many of a liberal bent that one should not point these uncomfortable facts out, even though what Nazir-Ali said is undoubtedly true. These inconvenient truths also meant that Williams could not pander to his Muslim friends by contradicting Nazir-Ali directly, so he had to find another way of ingratiating himself with them. Nevertheless, the truth of Nazir-Ali's claims did not stop the Muslims' bitter complaints, nor the subsequent death threats to Nazir-Ali and his family , who are now under Police protection. Strangely enough Williams has been silent on that issue.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Proves His Critics Correct: He Is Mad.

2008-02-08T08:40:00.000Z

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, finally lost his vestigial grip on sanity yesterday when he announced that it was unavoidable that the UK allows parts of Sharia Law to supersede our own laws. His reasoning for this astounding demonstration of his insanity was that Muslims in the UK would feel ostracised and left out of British society if they were forced to continue to accept the parts of our laws that they did not agree with. Nevertheless, the Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum was quick to point out that he did not want the parts of Sharia which imposed what he referred to as "extreme punishments" or discrimination against women to be adopted here, which will be welcome news for all those adulterers who would otherwise face execution by lapidation or beheading. However, it is rather strange that Williams has never suggested that those non-Muslims amongst us should also share the privileges he is advocating for Muslims and that we too should be able to set aside the laws of the land which we do not agree with but are forced to adopt.

Frankly, I think it is time this mad prelate was sent to Riyadh to preach to the Saudis that Christianity is the true interpretation of the "word of God" and that Muhammad misheard the dictation of the Archangel Gabriel so that Williams can experience directly the benefits of Sharia Law for himself. Either that or he should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital here under the Mental Health Acts and medicated with large doses of risperidone.

Thank goodness every political party and religious denomination in this country has condemned the Arch-Buffoon's remarks as divisive, unacceptable, muddle-headed and wrong. It is only a pity that Williams did not have sufficient insight to appreciate that for himself, but his lack of insight merely confirms that the man has lost his vestigial grip on sanity.

Archbishop Rapes Immigrants

2007-12-30T09:50:00.000Z

At lease, that's the claim made by leading Polish community leaders in today's 'The Sunday Telegraph'

Apparently, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, urged the Polish community to do more to learn English and integrate into local parishes, claiming the Catholic Church in the UK was in danger of dividing along ethnic lines as the number of Polish-speaking churches rose. The Cardinal Archbishop went on to say:

"I'm quite concerned that the Poles are creating a separate church in Britain. I would want them to be part of the Catholic life of this country."

But Grazyna Sikorska, of the Polish Catholic Mission for England and Wales, said the community had been upset. She told the Catholic newspaper 'The Tablet':

"How can he demand that we stop praying in Polish? Is it a sin? I feel my inner conscience has been violated, leaving me spiritually raped."

So, there you have it folks, now the Roman Catholic church is moving on from raping altar-boys to raping Polish immigrants.

Not to be outdone in the taking-of-umbrage stakes, Fr Tadeusz Kukla, the vicar-delegate for Poles in England and Wales, said:

"If we lose our national identity, we lose everything."

Well here's a thought for you, Tadeusz: Why don't all you delusional psychotics fuck-off back to where you brought your national identity and shoddy religion from instead of setting up your inwardly-looking Polish ghettoes here and changing our national identity, you hypocritical, delusional fuckwit?

Thanks to your lot, there has been an increase in weekly Mass attendance from 917,500 in 2005 to 927,154 last year, and you are apparently turning Britain into a catholic country according to a recent report.

As if we haven't got enough problems with our own home-grown delusional theists (with apologies to my knowledgeable readers for the oxymoron), without inviting even more of you to our shores.

Oh dear, now Grazyna can add the spurious charge of having been spiritually offended to that of having been spiritually raped.

Good News: Bishops Face Sack

2007-12-27T08:28:00.000Z

According to 'The Daily Telegraph' today, the good news is that 1 in 5 of the Church of England's 113 bishops faces the sack because the Church is top heavy and the bishops too costly, while congregations are shrinking and parishes are strapped for cash. Apparently last year's bill for these useless, time-wasting parasites and out-of-works was nearly £25 million.

Under new proposals being considered by the Church Commissioners, they would fund only 2 bishops per diocese - at the moment nearly half of them have between 3 and 6. Talk about over-manning - makes you wonder that there's enough choir-boys and catamites to go around them all.

Interesting enough, though congregations and church attendances have shrunk dramatically since 1900, in that year there were 57 bishops and about 24,000 clergy, while there are now 113 bishops and only 9,000 full-time parish clergy, supplemented by a similar number of part-time clergy and licensed lay people. Some may think that is definitely a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians, but most impartial observers would recognise that it is approximately 18,000 too many sinecures.

Good riddance to all of them, I say.

Britain Is Now A Catholic Country

2007-12-23T08:46:00.000Z

That is a headline taken from 'The Sunday Telegraph' , and according to it Britain has now become a Catholic country as Roman Catholics have overtaken Anglicans as the country's dominant religious group. More people attend Mass every Sunday than worship with the Church of England, according to figures seen by that newspaper. The article continues:

This means that the established Church has lost its place as the nation's most popular Christian denomination after more than four centuries of unrivalled influence following the Reformation.

The statistics show that attendance at Anglican Sunday services has dropped by 20 per cent since 2000. A survey of 37,000 churches, to be published in the new year, shows the number of people going to Sunday Mass in England last year averaged 861,000, compared with 852,000 Anglicans worshipping.(These totals are a risibly insignificant percentage of our 60 million population, you will notice, Dear Reader.)

Presumably this fact was known to Tony B-liar and was contributory to him announcing his recent conversion to Roman Catholicism (see here), since he has always been one to ditch whatever or whoever he sees are losers and to latch on to whatever or whoever he perceives to be in the ascendant - today Roman Catholicism, tomorrow perhaps Islam, if the fundamentalists get their way and succeed in forcing a caliphate onto we kuffars and infidels (that is, if they don't murder us first).

"But that can't be true", you say, "Tony's not like that, he supported George Dubya Buffoon through thick and thin over Iraq even though the electorate here didn't support him and it was a definite vote loser". To which I reply that you are forgetting that Toney Baloney is primarily a delusional psychopath (see here) and was instructed by the same 'God' that The Buffoon was to offer him mutual support and launch their criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq together.

Meanwhile, that dysfunctional charlatan the Rev Alister McGrath (see here), professor of historical theology at Oxford University, said that the church attendance findings from the organisation Christian Research should act as a wake-up call to the Church of England. Personally, Alister, I would have though that a more fruitful field of research for the organisation Christian Research would have been to try to discover ANY credible objective evidence whatsoever that (a) that this 'God' of your exists, (b) ditto for this person you refer to as 'Christ' ever existed, (c) ditto that (b) was the son whilst being the same as (a), and that (a) (b) and (c) created the cosmos and everything in it.

Frankly, it should matter not one whit which bunch of religious lunatics, morons, credulous buffoons, manipulative sociopaths and sundry dysfunctional personalities are in the ascendant, since NONE of you should have ANY say in the running of this country. Your faith should be a private matter, shared between you and your invented 'God' and your co-religionists in the privacy of your own homes, meeting places, and places of worship. But unfortunately you are not content with having those freedoms - no, you all want to impose your own particular form of delusional psychopathy onto those of us who are capable of seeing you and your egregious charade for what it is.

To paraphrase Professor Georges Rey: At some level you are all liars!

Saint Baloney, Complete Phoney

2007-12-22T20:56:00.001Z

Well, I was going to write a piece on the total hypocrisy of Toney Baloney (left) - and, yes, I do know that Our Tone doesn't spell his forename that way but it looks better that way - but my good friend Paplazarou has beaten me to it and said all that needs be said. So, this will have to suffice from me - except to direct you to Papalazarou's superior comment.

Mind you, not all Roman Catholic's are happy about Tone's apparent conversion either - already this evening on TV we've had Anne Widdicombe and the Editor of the 'Catholic Herald' fulminating on the subject, and no doubt at this minute they're dipping their respective quills in vitriol and penning something scurrilous to say about it in the press over the weekend.

Actually, the real reason that Toney Baloney converted now was so that he could take advantage of the Pope's recent offer of relief from purgatory. But there's only one thing wrong with that, Tone: you are destined to live in the hell of your own creation, you hypocritical mendacious fuckwit.

Still, it'll make for nice cosy Sunday mornings for you and Cherie as you indulge in you cannibalistic, sympathetic-magic, delusional rituals.

Another Archbishop Archbuffoon Bleats

2007-12-22T19:10:00.000Z

The lying buffoon pictured in none other that the ~~Archbishop~~ Archbuffoon of ~~Wales~~ Sheep-shaggers, Dr Barry Morgan, who, according to the BBC, has been bleating on behalf of his flock of sheep that what he calls "atheistic fundamentalism" is exposing his ~~faith~~ delusional psychosis for the complete irrational madness that it undoubtedly is.

What Bazza the Buffoon is complaining about is that he claims that athiests advocate: ''

...that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as "superstitious nonsense".

But it IS superstition, you moronic, delusional buffoon - unless you can actually provide some credible empiric evidence that this so-called 'god' you bleat on about exists, but then you can't, and neither can any of your kind. In short, you are a complete fraud, and a sanctimonious one at that.

Bazza Morgan also moans that:

"[Fundamentalism] leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."

But here's some news for you, you Bonzo, Bazza - atheists do not believe in this 'God' you keep banging on about, therefore, your implication that 'atheist fundamentalism' is synonymous with religious fundamentalism' is a piece of arrant nonsense - but then one would expect no less from a man who has made it his life's work to live as a charlatan, mountebank, and complete fraud. Or perhaps you wish to maintain that you actually believe all that irrational, unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo that you claim to believe in, in which case you are a simple delusional psychotic in desperate need of sectioning under the Mental health Act and some effective anti-psychotic medication.

Some more examples of Bazza's complete irrationality: are demonstrated by his pronouncements:-

God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety. (So 'God' is on the side of atheists and Muslim suicide-bombers, is he then Barry?)
[It is] perfectly natural to have a coherent and rational debate about the tenets of the Christianity. (My 'God', you can't even speak 'proppa' English, you Drongo - the definite article 'the' is completely unneccessary in that phrase of yours - but I do agree that it is possible for sane people to have a coherent and rational debate about the mental illness known as 'Christianity')
Virulent, almost irrational attacks on [Christianity are] dangerous because they refused to allow any contrary viewpoint and also affected the public perception of religion.(The only 'irrationality' in evidence here is your religious faith, and the only 'danger' is that pointing that out simply encourages those in society less-capable of critical though and who are normally preyed upon by manipulative clerics like yourself to see religion in its true light - manipulative delusion, the sole purpose of which is social control for the benefit of those who wish to impose it on the rest of us.)

In short, you are simply another duplicitous cleric who is bleating because you are losing your power and prestige as society at large becomes wise to the fact that the whole religious edifice is a complete and utterly unsubstantiated sham, and people like you are nothing other than cheap mountebanks selling snake-oil at some fairground side-show.

But go on, prove me wrong, Bazza - produce credible objective evidence (a) that this 'God' of your exists, (b) ditto for this person you refer to as 'Christ' ever existed, (c) ditto that (b) was the son whilst being the same as (a), and that (a) (b) and (c) created the cosmos and everything in it.

Oh, and whilst you're at it, prove that you're not mentally ill.

Are All Americans Mad?

2007-12-21T08:20:00.001Z

Since it seems that one has to be some sort of religious lunatic in order to stand a chance of being elected to the office of President of the United States, the question asked in the title is a fair one: Are All Americans Mad?

The buffoon pictured, for example, is none other than Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas and Presidential candidate who is, to us on this side of the pond, just another delusional psychotic fundie Southern Baptist minister from the town of Ignorance (though the locals refer to it as 'Hope'), Arkansas.

Naturally, 'The Huckster' is well-qualified to be President, with a batchelor's degree(magna cum laude) in religion from that impressive seat of learning, Ouachita Baptist University, though, subsequently, he did have to leave the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary after only a year of further attempted study.

Recently, 'The Huckster' took part in a TV debate in the US (see the clip here) where he had to defend himself on his stance regarding evolution. Some of Huckabee's responses were as follows (and note how they conform strictly to the pattern adopted by religious fraudsters and delusional psychopaths):-

"God created the heavens and the earth."
"Either you believe that God created the process or it was an accident and that it all happened on its own."
"How God did it I don't know because I wasn't there."
"We're all the unique creations of God who knows us and loves us and who created us for his own purpose."
"But you know, if anyone wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate they are certainly welcome to do it. I don't know how far they will march that back."

Now, whilst one just might be prepared to vote for a candidate for the Presidency who did not believe in evolution but credited his invented 'God' with having created everything, except itself, one would at least expect Huckabee to know that he is, de facto, the descendant of primates, for not only is he one, but so are his mother and father and all their antecedents right back to the earliest hominids!

So, it looks like 'the greatest nation on earth' is on track to get yet another irrational, non-scientific, ignorant, delusional, superstitious Xtian fundie to take it down the road to the oblivion that it so justly deserves - let's just hope that it doesn't drag the rest of us along with it.

And in answer to the opening question: a resounding "YES" to all of them who vote for fuckwits and manipulative swindlers like 'The Huckster'.

Theists Evade The Issues - What A Surprise.

2007-12-20T10:00:00.000Z

The looney-tunes, fundie, Xtian apologist, US-based encycolpaedia on the web, 'Conservapedia' (which risibly entitles itself 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'), reproduces survey findings from the 'American Sociological Review' in 2006 and claims that this showed that the group 47.6% of American society "relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family" are atheists.

What 'Conservapedia' fails to mention is that this implies that 52.4% of American society are of the opposite persuasion, but then 'Conservapedia' has never been an organisation which lets facts stand in the way of its propaganda and Xtian dogma.

A couple of examples quoted from them will suffice to demonstrate the totally fallacious claims made by this sorry excuse for an encyclopaedia - hardly surprising, however, since it's real purpose is simply to propagate fundie Xtian claims:-

"As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many debates have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States". (accessed 20/12/07, here.)
"According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical".(accessed 20/12/07 here).

Oh, and just one other thing - the contributors to 'Conservapedia' are adamant in their opinion that the onus to disprove that these entities called 'gods' do not exist rests solely and squarely on atheists, and they quote this in support of their position:

In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels which is one of the principle websites for atheists, agnostics and skeptics on the internet, states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."

Well, I'm sorry to have to disagree with Lowder, Copan, and the scribes at 'Conservapedia', but neither this atheist nor any other atheist is obliged to assume the mantle of disproving that which theists initiated de novo.

Theists invented the concept of 'gods' ab initio, so your lot have to prove your case. Your attempt to divert the onus onto atheists by quoting that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy define 'atheism' as 'the denial of the existence of any God or gods' is completely irrelevant and thoroughly spurious. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary (arguably the most definitive dictionary in the world) defines 'atheism' as: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God".

In other words, the word 'atheism' encompasses the simple state of someone who acknowledges that there is no credible evidence to support the claims made by theists that this 'god' they refer to exists; or, as philosophers and psychologists have it, that theism is not a 'justified true belief', so there is absolutely no onus on those who do not accept theism to disprove the claims made by theists that their particular 'god' exists, or even to disprove that there are any other so-called 'gods'.

Au contriare, as Voltaire would have it - and you do like quoting him when it suits you, don't you - the onus is not only on you to prove that this particular 'god' whom you refer to as 'God' exists, but that you must also prove all the other specious claims you make for this entity - such as that it is the 'First Cause but itself Uncaused', or that it is actually any more credible than any of the thousands of other 'creator-gods' that mankind has deluded itself into believing over the millennia.

Oh, and pointing out that your 'God' tells you in his 'Holy Bible' to eschew all other 'gods' is not sufficient proof of anything other than the collective delusional psychopathology of those who wrote and subsequently those who claim to believe in those fairy-tales in the first place.

Next, some other theistic loonie will be telling me that Cthulhu really exists, and that the 'Necronomicron' of the Seer and Prophet Abdul Al-hazred is really 'holy scripture' and that it is up to me to disprove their claims.

On second thoughts, let the Xtian apologists who contribute their drivel to 'Consevapedia' disprove it for, according to their own arguments, the onus is on them to do so, since the 'Necronomicron' states that Cthulhu is THE 'Elder One' and therefore it must, by definition, have existed prior to the 'God' of Xtians; the corollary to this is that unless Xtians can disprove the claims made for Cthulhu, then they are unable to demonstrate that their 'God' is the 'First Cause' or THE 'Elder One'.

Delusional psychotics, the lot of them.

So-Called Atheist, Real-Time Hypocrite

2007-12-19T17:06:00.001Z

This is a photograph of Nick Clegg, the newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats, pontificating in the way that politicians love to do.

During an interview today on BBC radio, Clegg stated "No" in reply to the question, "Do you believe in God", but went on to add, subsequently, that he has...

"...enormous respect for people who have religious faith, I'm married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics. However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind."

Now how's that for a piece of outstanding hypocrisy and duplicity?

If you really don't believe in this mythical figure referred to as 'God, Mr Clegg - and, remember, you said initially that you didn't - then not only do you not have the right to allow your children to be indoctrinated into the delusional faith shared by your wife and the Roman Catholic Church, but you are actively participating in child abuse.

And as for your subsequent mealy-mouthed utterances that you are not an 'active believer' what exactly do you mean to convey by that: that you do believe in this mythical entity called 'God' but simply don't worship it, that you are really an agnostic , or that you are too pusillanimous and duplicitous to reiterate your initial, categorical and atheist "No"?

Furthermore, it is impertinent of you to imply that those of us who are neither intellectually sub-normal nor psychologically dysfunctional to talk honestly or think rationally about the delusional psychopathology that is religion have taken such a stand due to us having " a closed heart or a closed mind". On the contrary, it is only those people who do have an open heart and an open mind who can acknowledge there there is absolutely no credible objective evidence whatsoever that any of the thousands of so-called 'gods' which mankind has invented over the millennia have ever existed, far less the one that the Abrahamic religions refer to as 'God', the supreme and only creator of the universe and all that exists in it.

But then I'd hardly expect you to be familiar with the concept of personal integrity, Nicky-boy, and your latest little piece of duplicity as reported by the BBC simply confirms that.

Oh, by the way, don't count on my vote.

No, belay that; count on my vote, just hold your breath until you get it.

Does God Cause Global Warming?

2007-12-17T21:25:00.000Z

So, according to this report, scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report in February saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man. However, there are those, not least the devout Xtians amongst us who proclaim that these scientists are wrong, since the Xtians argue that their 'God' made everything which, by definition, includes global warming. After all, there is evidence to show that the Xtians are correct and that the scientists are wrong. How else could the 4 major ice ages that the planet we call 'Earth' has endured and which passed be explained if it was not due to" God's Global Warming"? And then we come to the warming which brought to an end the Little Ice Age (1500-1850).

As the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' has it:

"The mean solar activity was quite low [during this period], but positive fluctuations occurred around 1540–90 and 1770–1800. The main westerly storm belts shifted about 500 kilometres to the south, and for much of the time the northern latitudes came under cool continental conditions. Observed temperature series in Europe from Paris to Leningrad show large fluctuations until 1850.

Glacier advances are recorded in the Alps, in the Sierra Nevada, and in Alaska. Corresponding low sea levels are recorded by early tide gauge records in The Netherlands and Germany. Even in equatorial latitudes there are traces of mountain glacier advances (as in the Andes of Colombia)."Holocene Epoch. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved December 17, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition: http://library.eb.co.uk/eb/article-70038

Whilst I do not consider for a moment that this mythical entity that theists refer to as 'God' caused the global warming that brought these ice ages to and end, I am still waiting to be convinced by the scientists who claim that mankind is mainly responsible for our current state of affairs - and also how they explain the previous episodes of global warming since it is clear that mankind was not responsible for those.

I am also left wondering how many of those scientists are themselves theists, and what role they ascribe to their 'God' for the current situation.

As for our politicians - here in the UK at least it's quite clear that they have another agenda entirely, which I suspect is the social control much beloved by so-called 'socialists', and that they are using the spectre of global warming to further their own political ends. Evidence of this is far too voluminous to recount here,so a single example will have to suffice, though I'm sure, dear reader, that you can come up with a few more of your own:-

Why does the government not impose a ban on manufacturing, selling, or using internal combustion engined vehicles that can do more than, say, 56MPH (the speed at which most vehicles are designed to be most economical with regard to fuel burn/emissions)? For example, an average of around 131,000 cars a month were produced in the three months to July 2007 (ONS), and ALL of those were capable of exceeding that limit, thereby impacting directly on fossil-fuel waste and greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm also intrigued why it is that those who claim to be the most concerned about the impact the hoi-polloi are having on global warming find so many reasons for excusing themselves from the strictures that they want to place of the rest of us.

But then hasn't it always been that way, with the self-appointed 'high-priests' of whatever movement is fashionable telling their flocks how to live their own miserable lives whilst they themselves live high on the hog.

Perhaps 'global warming' is the new theism and the IPCC Report the new 'holy scripture'?

A Pastor Admits, "God Doesn't Exist"

2007-12-16T09:23:00.000Z

The obvious madman in the photograph is none other than the Rev. Klaas Hendrikse, the Dutch Protestant cleric who claims that he does not believe in God's existence in his best-seller, 'Believing in a God Who Does Not Exist: Manifesto of an Atheist Pastor', which is currently being reprinted for the third time, according to 'The Times' yesterday.

According to Klaas, "The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God".

Hendrikse then begins to wax lyrical:

"I am an atheist believer. God is for me not a being, but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you' and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright(sic) to call that God."

Hmmm, interesting theory: 'God' is not an entity, the creator of the cosmos and all that is in it, but simply a transaction between people when an intention or action is declared and fulfilled. In other words, for Hendrikse, 'God' is not a noun but a verb. Thus, according to his definition, someone who says "I'm going to kill you", and subsequently does it, is 'God'.

Interesting stuff, indeed, but there's just one small problem with your definition, Klaas.

The word atheist is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as:

1.One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

So, if you are using the word atheist in either of its proper meanings, what right have you, Klaas, to hold yourself out as an ordained minister of religion and spout all that rubbish you do?

Perhaps that's why the general secretary of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, Bas Plaisier, has criticised Hendrikse for treating Christian belief as a "dogma that can be put out with the rubbish". Still, according to 'Ecumenical News International', the denomination is not planning at present legal or disciplinary steps against the pastor, Plaisier said.

In other words, the church doesn't mind it's pastors lying to their flocks of sheep, but would prefer them to maintain the fiction that their 'God' qua 'God' does in fact exist.

Seems that Klaas is not the only madman in the Netherlands, then.

The Soul Exists - But Only In The Mind.

2007-12-15T18:55:00.000Z

In the 17th Century, René Descartes was the first to claim that the pineal gland was the 'seat of the soul', without so much as demonstrating that there was anything that could be shown objectively to be 'the soul'.

Descartes arrived at his conclusion because he believed that (a) the soul was given by the Xtian 'god' to homo sapiens, (b) that the soul is one substance, and (c) he had observed from anatomical studies that the pineal gland appeared to be unique among brain structures in that it was not divided into two halves.

Descartes was wrong on that account too, for closer examination has proved that the tiny gland does in fact have both a left and right hemisphere.

Like other hubristic theists (with apologies for the oxymoron), Descartes believed also that that animals could not have a pineal gland because his religious faith had taught him that only humans have souls, though it is an inconvenient fact that many animals do have them too - pineal glands, that is.

Not that Descartes would have let such a tedious fact divert him from his spurious endeavours to prove that his 'God' existed and that homo sapiens had been created by 'Him' and in 'His' image. But then Descartes is a much over-rated philosopher - and an even worse scientist - and perhaps his most egregious endowment to the history of critical thought is his famous, and wrong, dicta: 'cogito ergo sum' . Even a callow schoolboy could have told him that he'd got it completely the wrong way round and it should have been - 'I am therefore I think'. Still, what can one expect from a devout Jesuit.

Last month, however, an interesting paper was published in 'Nature Precedings', which bills itself as 'a journal for pre-publication research and preliminary findings'. The paper is entitled "Correlation between Pineal Activation and Religious Meditation Observed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" by a team at the National Taiwan University in Taipei, which may be downloaded as a PDF file from this link.

Whilst scientists say there is no evidence that our so-called immortal connection to the afterlife exists - or as Gautama Buddha pointed out some 2,600 years ago, "There is no soul" - brain scans using the latest fMRI technology now suggests the area surrounding the pineal gland is activated when people meditate.

The study co-leader Dr Jyh-Horng Chen said that:

"There is no definition of 'soul' in the scientific field."

He went on to conclude:

"But our results demonstrate a correlation between pineal activation and religious meditation which might have profound implications in the physiological understanding of mind, spirit and soul.

Whether this correlation is merely a psychological effect or a real physical phenomenon remains to be further explored."

Incidentally, the subjects of the study - 11 men and 9 women - were all practitioners of the esoteric 'T'ienti Teachings', also known as 'Chinese Original Quiet Sitting', and it should be noted that the T'ienti Teaching movement describes itself as an international religious organization which also goes by the name of 'The Lord of Universe Church'

In other words, the population chosen for the study is (a) statistically insignificant, (b) completely unrepresentative, and (c) already believe in ancient esoteric mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in the objective world, science or logic - despite claiming to be over 5,000 years old.

Some of the other claims made by the movement are:

"Chinese Original Quiet Sitting is the sole legacy, passed down 5,000 years from Chinese ancestors, that strengthens bodies and genes, nurtures life, gives longevity, and makes mankind unify with Heaven. For ancient Taoists it was the prime practice for tempering soul and body, taking them beyond constraints of the physical world to a marvelous(sic) integration of spirit and flesh. In it they found everlasting life."

The movement then goes on to state:

"Chinese Original Quiet Sitting was personally imparted by the First-Appointed Master Emissary of the T'ienti Teachings, Mr. Lee Yü-chieh(1901-1994)..."

From which one is forced to conclude that the "everlasting life" claimed by the adherents of the T'ienti Teachings is not to be taken literally.

However, if one is not to take that claim literally, what evidence is there for any of the other claims made by 'The Lord of Universe Church'?

And why should we take the paper "Correlation between Pineal Activation and Religious Meditation Observed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" seriously?

Evil Atheists Murder Rightly Religious

2007-12-10T08:08:00.000Z

Yes, it's true, wicked atheists have murdered decent religious folks in two incidents in Colorado this weekend, according to the BBC. In the first, a gunman shot five people in the car park of the New Life Church, Colorado Springs, killing one and wounding 4 others, whilst in the second in a Denver missionary training centre another gunman shot 4, killing 2 of them. (Incidentally, New Life Church was set up by the drug-fiend and promiscuous pederast Ted Haggard, the well-known phoney-preacher, charlatan, mountebank and swindler who you might remember for having had the temerity to call Richard Dawkins arrogant during the latter's TV programme 'The Roots of Evil'.)

Admittedly the BBC don't actually lay the blame for the rampages (can killing 3 people and wounding 6 others in 2 separate incidents be called 'rampages'?) on atheists, nor do they suggest that atheists are wicked or evil, but I'm sure that it is only a matter of time before the religious right in Jesusland (the USA to the rest of us) do - if they haven't already. After all, they've effectively blamed the Columbine murders amongst other such incidents on atheism - see the moronic diatribe by the dysfunctional psychopath Ken Ham in the risibly-named site 'Answers in Genesis' where he claims:

"You see, when millions of students have been told in their classes that there is no God, that man is just an animal, and that death, bloodshed, and violence (similar to what we observe in today’s world) are a natural part of the evolutionary mechanisms that produced man, then let’s be honest about the logical consequences!"

So, there you have it folks - fail to ~~teach~~ indoctrinate children with the exclusive Xtian fairy-tale and they simply go off and do whatever they like, including the mass-murder of their fellow man.

But just a minute - isn't George Dubya Buffoon a devout Xtian? "Course he is", is the reply (and 'course' is the word, but that's another matter), "But he hasn't murdered anyone yet". True, but then all he did was to order the poor suckers in the forces he commands to do it for him - mass murder by proxy, as it were, but that doesn't count because the Iraqis aren't Xtians and so they don't matter anyway (Besides, George was on a holy crusade to steal their oil, until Tony 'God-Told-Me-To-Do-It-Too' B-liar muscled in on Georgie's little game - hardly surprising really, since it was the same 'God' who advised them both.)

Not that these niceties will stop the loonie Xtian right-wing from blaming atheists and atheism for these two terrible events in Colorado this weekend - even if the killers happen to have been inmates of the religious institutions where these atrocities took place - and using them as an excuse to issue more special pleading for the forced indoctrination of so-called 'Xtian values' and the introduction of even greater rights and privileges for Xtians.

After all, wasn't the Twin Towers incident ('9/11' to my American friends) perpetrated by atheists?

What d'you mean, NO!

But the guys that did it weren't Xtians, so they must have been atheists - and, besides, they were evil.

'Nuff said.

The Price Of Islam's Brutal Heritage

2007-12-09T08:28:00.000Z

A recent survey by the think-tank 'Policy Exchange' found that 36% of young Muslims in the UK believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.

Unsurprising, really, when 'The Daily Telegraph' reports that there is considerable support for those barbaric and ignorant views in the Qur'an and other sacred Islamic texts - which may explain why, out of the 57 Islamic states in the world today, seven have a legal code that punishes Muslims who leave the religion with death and Pakistan is currently considering a Bill that would make apostasy a capital crime for men and one carrying a sentence of imprisonment for women.

Patrick Sookhdeo was born a Muslim, but later converted to Christianity. He is now international director of the Barnabas Fund, an organisation that aims to research and to ameliorate the conditions of Christians living in countries hostile to their religion. He says:

"All four schools of Sunni law, as well as the Shia variety, call for the death penalty for apostates. Most Muslim scholars say that Muslim religious law - sharia - requires the death penalty for apostasy.
In 2004, Prince Charles called a meeting of leading Muslims to discuss the issue. All the Muslim leaders at that meeting agreed that the penalty in sharia is death. The hope was that they would issue a public declaration repudiating that doctrine, but not one of them did."

As 'The Daily Telegraph' article concludes:

Given the acceptance by some that Muslim religious law does indeed require that apostates be killed, it is hardly surprising that many ordinary Muslims think that it is their religious duty to carry out that punishment - or at least to threaten it.

But not all Muslims in Britain agree with that conclusion.

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), says that it is "absolutely disgraceful behaviour… In Britain, no Muslim has the right to harm one hair of someone who decides to leave Islam." And Inayat Bunglawala, also a spokesman for the MCB, insists that such behaviour in Britain is "awful and quite wrong. The police should crack down on it." However, Mr Bunglawala's words have to be seen in their proper context, since he subsequently refused to condemn those Muslim states which impose the death penalty for apostasy, claiming that such barbaric and ignorant treatment was "a matter for those states".

What is perhaps more surprising is that these spokespersons for the MCB do not appear to be aware of what is happening in their own mosques in this country.

According to Denis MacEoin's report for 'Policy Exchange' the following is just typical of the documents found in influential mosques here:

Fatawa Islamiyah - Islamic Verdicts, volume 5, which states, inter alia:
And if he apostatises after that, his head should be chopped off, according to the Hadith: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him'[emphasis added].(in the East London Mosque; the London Central Mosque and Islamic Centre

Frankly, the real problem with Islam is that it makes much of it's barbaric past as if it is relevant today. Furthermore, there is little consensus among Muslims about many aspects of their faith and no supreme imam to rule on their differences of interpretation. Nor does there appear to be any Muslim with sufficient moral authority and gravity amongst the ummah to act as arbiter. Consequently, it is unsurprising that so many ordinary Muslims are frightened to speak out against the barbaric and inhumane punishments ordered in the name of Islam - for they themselves could become the next victims of the brutal misanthropes who hide behind their religious texts and use these as justification for their vile atrocities.

Nevertheless, that does not excuse the actions of the Muslim leaders who refused to issue a public declaration repudiating the doctrine that the punishment for apostasy is death.

Claim Anything You Want - As Long As It Supports Religion

2007-12-08T21:14:00.000Z

Scott Stephens declared in 'Eureka Street' that Christopher Hitchens' recent book 'God Is Not Great' contemptuously strips religion of its nobility and dislodges it from its pride of place as the noble founding gesture of civilisation by ignoring that:

"[religion represents] the moment when Homo sapiens, driven by its emerging thirst for transcendence, takes the first step out of the domain of primates by investing certain ritualised practices with meaning."

Unfortunately, Stephens doesn't offer a single shred of empirical evidence to substantiate his claim that homo sapiens was "driven by its emerging thirst for transcendence" or even that this represented the "first step out of the domain of primates", whatever he means by those terms.

Having dismissed Hitchens, Stephens then attacks Dawkins, who is generally credited with creating the notion of the religious meme (though not by Stephens), but Stephens dismisses Dawkins by quoting that Daniel Dennett dismissed Dawkins' theory of the meme as mere 'philosophy' and, anyway, Stephens claims that Marx had already referred to the meme as "full of theological subtleties and metaphysical niceties". Nevertheless, I have to agree with Stephens and disagree with Dawkins; there is no empiric evidence that the meme qua meme exists, but all that means is that Dawkins has not nailed the reasons for the continued existence of religious faith and in no way evidences that religion is (a) necessary, (b) noble, (c) the first step out of the domain of primates, or (d) anything else that is intrinsically worthy per se. (I also have to admit that it is some 70+ years since I read Marx, but I do not recollect him referring to the meme as such, and I suggest that Stephens is in all likelihood 'egging the pudding').

Frankly, I find Stephens' argument weak to the point of non-existence. If, as he appears to be maintaining, religion represents homo sapiens' "thirst for transcendence", that seems to me to be an admission that religion is simply the wish-fulfilment of a primitive psychological need for meaning and permanence - a need which those of us who continue to develop and mature psychologically realise is as unnecessary and as meaningless as the so-called answers that religion claims to give. (NB. I am also intrigued at the hubris of those who believe that primates and other species do not have a need for meaning and permanence, unlike homo sapiens, but perhaps they are more capable of divining the inner life of other species than I am).

In conclusion, Stephens and his kind are unable to give any evidence demonstrating the necessity for religion per se, and attacking people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Marx or Uncle Tom Cobbley when they dismiss the validity of religion does nothing to make religion anything other than a symptom of the primitive psychological needs of insecure and dysfunctional people. However, his attack does prove that one can say anything one likes, as long as it supports religion - unless, of course, one is a fundamental Muslim who claims that it is God's will that unbelievers and apostates be murdered (not to mention the Xtian 'pro-life' murdrerers).

No-one Knows Where Jesus Was Born - Or If He Ever Was.

2007-12-08T08:50:00.000Z

Theos, the special-pleading Christian 'think-tank' held a survey last month which indicated that over a quarter of adults (27%) do not know where 'Jesus' was born. Commenting on the results of the survey, Paul Woolley, Director of Theos, said:

"These findings provide us with a good snapshot of our national relationship with Christianity.

They show that the Christmas story, in its classic formulation is still very much in our cultural blood stream, as indeed is the Christian story as a whole.

However, when you probe in any depth, you discover that our knowledge and understanding is rather more shaky.

The fact that younger people are the least knowledgeable about the Christmas story may reflect a decline in the telling of Bible stories in schools and the popularity of Nativity plays.

No-one seriously thinks that being a Christian or a member of the established Church is the same thing as being British today. But, at the same time, if we are serious about social cohesion we can't afford to ignore the stories that have bound us together as a culture for a thousand years.

Attempts to down-play the Christmas story in order to help social cohesion are likely to be counterproductive(sic)."

Actually, Paul, all your results demonstrate is how effective up until recently the Xtian tradition of brain-washing children in schools to believe the Xtian mythology has been for no-one, over the millennia, has ever been able to produce a single credible shred of empiric evidence that this fellow you refer to as 'Jesus' ever existed.

Furthermore, 'The Jesus Seminar', which was set up in 1985 by Robert Funk, concluded by the year 2000 that some 82% of the sayings attributed to 'Jesus' were simply fictionalised by the Gospel writers. Indeed, as R. Joseph Hoffmann, Chair, Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion said in a famous article published in 1993 in the secular humanist magazine 'Free Enquiry':

“The Jesus of the [Jesus Seminar] is a talking doll with a questionable repertoire of thirty-one sayings. Pull a string and he blesses the poor.”

Having established that at least 82% of the sayings attributed to this person called 'Jesus' were pure fiction, the next question raised was: 'Did Jesus exist?' and so 'The Jesus Project' was set up in January 2007, with a project lifespan of 5 years and its first session scheduled for this month.

The aim of the project is a probable reconstruction of the events that explain the beginning of Christianity — a man named Jesus from the province of Galilee whose life served as the basis for the beginning of a movement, or a sequence of events that led to the Jesus story being propagated throughout the Mediterranean. The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion finds both conclusions worthy of contemplation, but asserts that as we live in the real world—of real causes and outcomes, only one can be true. Their aim, like Pilate’s (John 18:38), is to find the truth.

Nevertheless, even if 'The Jesus Project' does conclude that 'a man named Jesus from the province of Galilee' really did exist and that his life 'served as the basis for the beginning of a movement', it would not be able to prove that this 'Jesus' was either (a) 'the son of God' or (b) that this so-called 'God' had ever existed in the first place.

Nevertheless, the special-pleading Christian 'think-tank' Theos is unlikely to be bothered by the fact that it's poll questions were deliberately misleading and loaded in order to produce the answers it wanted, for the fact remains that no-one, over the millennia, has ever been able to produce a single credible shred of empiric evidence that the person that theists refer to as 'Jesus' ever existed. But then religious types have never been ones to let truth and fact stand in their way.

Holiday in France - Save Time In Hell.

2007-12-07T08:23:00.000Z

OK, so the headline isn't quite accurate, but it is lot more so than the silly nonsense put out by the Roman Catholic church and Pope Benedict XVI yesterday.

According to the Vatican, Il Poopoo is offering relief from purgatory to Roman Catholics who travel to Lourdes over the next year, but when I want relief, I prefer something that is guaranteed to work, like cassia angustifolia, (senna pods to you), rather than the magical mumblings of a moronic misologist like Benny Ratsarse.

For those of you who are not as daft as the average catholic - or as willing to prey on the dysfunctional and delusional amongst us as the average cleric - Il Poopoo's deal allegedly works like this:

Pilgrims to the shrine of 'Our Lady of Lourdes' will be granted 'plenary indulgences' from Benny Ratsarse, which the ~~catholic church~~ multi-national business which he runs says will reduce the time spent being 'washed' of sin after death. The indulgences will be available from this weekend until Dec 8, 2008, providing you drop enough dosh into the maw of the church's coffers.

But those of you who can't make the trip to the extremely unpleasant little town of Lourdes needn't worry, for Il Excrementia has another plan to shear you from your dosh:

For those who cannot make the journey to France, the Pope will also grant indulgences to ~~Catholics~~ morons who pray at places of worship dedicated to the 'Madonna of Lourdes' from Feb 2 to Feb 11. Indulgences may also be granted under special circumstances to people too sick to visit the shrine, the Vatican said.

Now isn't that heart-warming! The catholic church will prey on those who are unable to pray at the real deal - Lourdes, the place where 150 years ago a half-mad, delusional and sexually-abused illiterate peasant girl claimed that the mythical figure of the 'Madonna' appeared to her in a vision. Well, at least that stopped all her male relatives shagging her as they realised that they could make more money out of exploiting her mad tale instead and, naturally, the catholic church was quick to jump on the money-making bandwaggon.

And so, the prosperity of a rather ugly and extremely unpleasant little town in south-west France was assured, as was the continued exploitation of the gullible, dysfunctional and just downright mad by the Roman Catholic church - a tradition which Benny Ratsarse, Il Poopoo Benedict XVI continues to this day.

Religion: Sacrificium Intellectus or Simply Delusional Psychosis

2007-12-06T20:29:00.000Z

Sacrificium Intellectus: the sacrifice of the intellect, silencing the voice of reason in favour of blind faith is, according to Ignatius Loyola, the duty of those who believe in god. Though Loyola was a Jesuit, the followers of all religious cults and ideologies renounce reason with alacrity. These people are true misologists, haters of reason, a type excoriated by Plato and subsequently by Kant in his 'Critique of Pure Reason' and 'Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals', though he owes much to Bayle who argued in his 'Historical and Critical Dictionary' that religion is not preferable to atheism and that atheists can be morally upright members of society - a view sadly still denied today by the soi disant god-fearing dupes, weirdos, sickos, psychos, liars, fraudsters and swindlers who would like you to believe that their beliefs are paramount, and that we should respect them for no other reason than they claim to believe the vile and irrational nonsense which they spout.

Not to be outdone by Loyola, some 300 hundred years later the philosopher and devout Christian, Soren Kierkegaard, acknowledged that whilst one cannot know or prove that ‘God’ exists, Christians must simply and passionately commit themselves to make a ‘leap of faith’ that ‘He’ does. Further, he insisted that this leap of faith could not be based on rational reasons, but that it was simply the result of subjective or personal necessity and passionate commitment on the part of the religiously minded. What Kierkegaard failed to point out was that the ‘leap of faith’ he insisted was necessary for one who claimed to ‘believe’ in ‘God’ was nothing other than a symptom of delusional psychopathology.

Over the years, there have been a number of influential studies into the reasoning processes of deluded and delusion-prone individuals. Most of these studies used an approach consistent with the prevailing diagnostic definition of delusions, according to which delusional beliefs are based on an “incorrect inference about external reality” - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, International Version (DSM-IV) p. 783.

One of the most recent of these studies, published 2006, was entitled Need for Closure, Jumping to Conclusions, and Decisiveness in Delusion-Prone Individuals, by McKay, Langdon & Coltheart, where ˜need for closure” refers to a motivated need for certainty, whilst ˜jumping-to-conclusions” bias refers to the gathering of minimal data when making overconfident probabilistic judgements; both of these constructs have been associated independently with delusion-proneness.

The methodology involved the use of standard tools, such as the Peters et al Delusion Inventory, the Huq et al experimental beads task, the Milgram and Tenne scales of decisional procrastination, and the Kruglanski et al. need for closure scale, amongst others.

Whilst it was the view of some earlier researchers that the need for closure motivates a jumping-to-conclusions bias, leading, in turn, to delusion-proneness, no study to date has provided evidence of a direct relationship between greater need for closure and jumping to conclusions.

The findings of this study were that the various facets of need for closure proved to be independent; e.g. intolerance of ambiguity correlated positively with delusion-proneness, whilst decisiveness correlated negatively. The finding that delusion-prone individuals are more indecisive in everyday life was replicated using different scales. Delusion proneness is associated independently with jumping-to-conclusions bias on experimental reasoning tasks, intolerance of ambiguity, and indecision concerning real-life dilemmas.

The results indicated that the jumping-to-conclusions bias may be associated more specifically with a propensity to hold implausible beliefs with unwarranted conviction. Results also indicated that need for closure (NFC) is not a unitary construct in relation to delusion-proneness, i.e. NFC intolerance of ambiguity and NFC decisiveness dissociated, whereas intolerance of ambiguity correlated positively with all aspects of delusion-proneness, decisiveness correlated negatively. However the researchers noted here that it was primarily heightened distress concerning implausible thoughts that predicted indecision concerning real-world dilemmas, as assessed using the NFC decisiveness scales. Furthermore, in the case of implausible ideas that come to consciousness as self-generated notions, these might also be associated with an inappropriate sense of heightened salience, leading to the unwarranted sense of conviction. This suggest that delusional and delusion-prone people express unwarranted conviction in their implausible ideas and jump to conclusions on an reasoning task because they attach inappropriate heightened salience to whatever presents to consciousness as an internally generated first-person representation of reality,

The conclusion is that these results suggest that, if anything, delusion-proneness, or at least delusional distress, is associated with indecisiveness concerning real-life dilemmas. They also suggest that delusion-prone individuals attach an inappropriate heightened salience to whatever presents to immediate consciousness as an internally generated (first-person) representation of reality. The authors of this paper draw on the findings of previous researchers which suggest that it might be this inappropriate salience that then causes the unwarranted conviction in implausible ideas, the jumping-to conclusions bias on an experimental probabilistic reasoning task, and the intolerance of ambiguity and indecisiveness concerning real-life dilemmas that they found in relation to delusion-proneness.

Whilst this abstract does not do justice to a fine highly technical paper, it is interesting to see how many of these summarized conclusions apply to so-called religious beliefs and those who claim to hold them. If theists so-called ‘belief’ in ’God’ is not a motivated by their need for certainty, or that their claims that their ‘God’ is the first cause and prime-mover is not the making of overconfident judgements on minimal data, or the fact that they claim that the rules for living a decent life can only come from their ‘God’ indicate that they are unable to act decisively for themselves, then they must provide rational, objective reasons for their faith, otherwise they must accept the evidence of Loyola, Kierkegaard and McKay et al: religious belief is delusional activity.

UK 'Must Celebrate Christianity'

2007-12-05T20:24:00.000Z

That, at least, is the headline in the BBC's report of the debate led in parliament today by that delusonal psychotic and moron, Mark Pritchard, referred to here in an earlier blog.

During the time-wasting debate, apparently some buffoon bearing the ridiculous title of 'community cohesion minister' called Parmjit Dhanda told MPs that Xtianity had had a "significant impact" in securing people's rights and freedoms.

Obviously, Mr Dhanda is completely unaware of the continued and ongoing attempts by Christians to silence those who call their delusional beliefs regarding the existence of their so-called 'god' and this mythical person they call 'jesus' into question. I refer, of course, to the decision in the High Court today, reported here, when a group of religious fascists known as 'Christian Voice' failed, yet again, in their attempts to prosecute the BBC for the screening of 'Jerry Springer - The Opera' in 2005. Naturally these soi-disant Xtians claim to speak on behalf of all Xtians, and they have announced that they intend to continue with their attempts to silence anyone who criticises or holds their ridiculous religion up to the ridicule that it rightly deserves. So much for Xtians promulgating free speech and freedom for those of us who are not party to their dysfunctional needs, eh Mr Dhanda?

Now Mark Pritchard wants Christians to be granted "full minority rights" (whatever THAT means), because:"

"Most Christians feel they are not getting a fair hearing."

However, Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, called the debate "a waste of precious parliamentary time", and concluded:

"Christians are not being pushed out of public life. If anything they are over-represented."

Hardly surprising really that they should take on so, however, as Xtians have always claimed that they have been badly done by ever since their make-believe messiah and non-existent 'jesus' was supposedly crucified by a bunch of non-believers.

Nevertheless, I fully support Mark Pritchard's call for Xtians to be given a fair hearing - except that it should be during the course of a structured professional interview from a competent psychiatrist, for the sooner that these poor delusional psychotics are treated properly with modern anti-psychotic drugs the better it will be for them, not to mention for the rest of us who are, by his own admission, the majority.

In conclusion, we, the majority, are becoming increasingly tired of Xtians' constant wailings and bleatings that they deserve more power to dictate to the rest of us, as well as their constant refrain we should respect their delusional faith despite the fact that it is actually a diagnosable mental illness.

How Do I Stop My Son Praying To Santa Claus?

2007-12-04T19:43:00.000Z

Yes folks, that's a genuine headline taken from this week's 'Catholic Herald' which bills itself as "Britain's Leading Catholic Newspaper".

Goodness knows what the conclusion was, for the cheapskates on the Catholic Herald don't provide free access to the article. However, allow me to provide my own solution:-

Teach your son that Santa Claus is a mythical creature, just like the entity you call 'god', and 'jesus' and 'mary magdalene' you dumb fucking bitch!

Christian Apologist Speaks Bleats

2007-12-04T11:53:00.001Z

According to the BBC today, the Tory MP for Wrekin, Mark Pritchard (pictured) has called for a debate in parliament on Wednesday to protest about what he calls 'Christianophobia', or the marginalising of what he calls "the Christian tradition of this nation".

Perhaps Mr. P isn't aware of the latest research which indicates that only 20% of the population of these Isles attend a religious service in a church 'once a year or more'.

He continues his bleatings with this:

"If mainstream political parties do not recognise and protect the Christian tradition of this nation then other more extremist parties will.
If that happens, we are in danger of Christianity being hijacked by these ambitions."

However, Pritchard fails to address the real issue, viz: Why should we protect "the Christian tradition" per se?

Indeed, why should we protect ANY religion?

The only attempt that Pritchard makes to defend his position as far as I can see is the old canard:

"Freedom of speech and of religion are fundamental principles of any liberal democracy".

Naturally Pritchard conveniently ignores the fact that those of a religious persuasion DO have freedom to pursue their faith, but there is NO good reason why they should be allowed to impose their delusional psychopathology on those who do not share their psychotic behaviour.

But Pritchard hasn't finished with his silly little sqealings, for he concludes:

"Some people seem to want to forget the Christian tradition going back to the first century and its contribution to arts, culture and science.
It's gone far enough. If there are those who want to see the Christian church reduced to the margins in this nation they should have the courage to say so, rather than using the rights of other religions as an excuse."

Perhaps he would care to advise me exactly what contributions the Christian church qua the Christian church has made to science, since I cannot think of a single one - and whilst he's answering that point, perhaps he'd also like to mention which version of the "Christian church" he has in mind when he refers to it as such.

As for the "Christian traditions" let us not forget that much of the abominations we visited on other tribes/nations/races/countries was a direct result of those so-called 'Christian traditions' - why, even our quondam leader, Tony B-liar, consulted the Christian 'God' before undertaking his illegal and murderous invasion of Iraq in our name - so I see NO reason why we should vaunt the delusional psychopathy that is religion in our public life.

And another thing: I do not need to use "the rights of other religions as an excuse [for attacking Christianity]", because I recognise that ALL religions are simply a form of delusional psychosis. However, providing these unfortunate, mentally ill theists keep their insecurities to themselves, all is well and good - the problem comes when morons like Pritchard want to visit their delusional faith on the rest of us.

I hope he loses his debate, but I bet our politicians are too pusillanimous to stand up and ridicule him and the "Christian tradition" he wants to foist onto the 80% of us who do share his faith.

Is The Pope Certifiably Insane?

2007-12-02T08:39:00.000Z

The mad liar, Pope Benedict Ratsarse is at it again with his mendacious ways and duplicitous arguments.

According to 'The Times', the swindler Benny Ratsarse declared in Spe Salvi (translates as 'Saved by ~~Hope~~ Lies!') that atheists argued that:

“A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God”. Since there was “no God to create justice”, atheists said, Man himself was called on to establish it on Earth. This protest against God was understandable, the Pope said, but “the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false”.

Well, I've got some news for you Benny - your whole declaration is "presumptuous and intrinsically false”, since:-

Atheism does not concern itself with the entirely meaningless question as to whether the entity you refer to as 'god' is good, bad, or indifferent, as atheism is the 'justifiable true belief' that there is no god whatsoever.
As no-one over the millennia has ever been able to produce a single scintilla of credible evidence that this entity which you refer to as 'god' exists, it is a deliberate perversion of language for you to dismiss atheism as a "protest against God".
People who claim to believe that an imaginary entity called 'god' objectively exists despite there being no credible evidence to support that belief - which means that it is not a 'justifiable true belief' - are genuinely mentally ill.
The concept of 'justice', like that of 'god' is also a man-made phenomenon, for there is no such thing - unless you trying to tell us, for example, that the barbaric punishments handed out in the name of 'God's justice' by Muslim clerics under Sharia Law should be applied universally as you all claim to believe in the same 'god'.
Man does "do what no God actually does or is able to do" every moment of every day, since that which does not objectively exist can do nothing in the real world nor is it able to.

Of course Benedict knows that what I am saying is verifiably true, unlike his specious nonsense quoted above, which is why he has to develop his theme by resorting to even more mendacious and duplicitous claptrap in his 76 page address to "Catholics... Protestants, Orthodox Christians and non-Christians", according to his arse-licking apologist and sycophant, Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, the Vatican biblical scholar who presented the ~~document~~ madman's scribblings.

Those who wish to waste their time reading any more of the Pope's lunatic fabrications and distortions of veracity can follow the link given above, but for those who still require convincing that Il Poopoo is undeniably insane, I will leave you with his conclusion:

"[Many people reject faith today] simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living forever – endlessly – appears more like a curse than a gift. [He concluded that Eternity was] not an unending succession of days in the calendar but an encounter with Christ after death which is like plunging into an ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time, the before and after, no longer exists”.

If that is not the ravings of a poor creature suffering from delusional psychosis and tormented by his madness, I don't know what is.

Or, to answer the question posed in the title: Yes. Absolutely.

Who Said Islam Is A Religion Of Peace?

2007-12-01T08:33:00.000Z

According to 'The Telegraph', Sheikh Abdul Jalil Karuri, a leading Sudanese cleric and adviser to President el-Bashir on cultural and religious matters, whipped up a crowd attending Khartoum's Martyrs' Mosque yesterday by telling them Gillian Gibbons had deliberately named her class's teddy bear Mohammed "with the intention of insulting Islam." Not so, you mentally defective Muslim moron, had she wished to insult Islam she would have chosen a pig as the class's mascot and named that Mohammed.

Later the protesters joined other worshippers to congregate in Martyrs' Square, in the centre of Khartoum, where they chanted "Shame, shame on the UK" - as if we are somehow responsible for their delusional psychopathic religious beliefs - "execute her" - demonstrating just how barbaric and misogynistic their stupid religion is - and "those who insult the Prophet of Islam should be punished with bullets" - as if that power-mad delusional paedophile was somehow worthy of any respect whatsoever.

Whilst 'The Times' reports "Preachers used loudhailers to goad the demonstration into angry Arabic chants of “No tolerance – execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad” - which only proves the truth of the famous dicta by the Nobel Laureate psysicist, Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things, but it takes religion for good people to do evil things".

Whereas 'The Guardian' pointed out:

"There was little doubt the protest had been carefully orchestrated. The banners waved by marchers and tied to the front of vehicles had all been pre-printed. Before the verdict, imams across the city also focused on the case in their sermons. One address, broadcast on national radio, accused Gibbons of purposefully comparing the prophet to a bear - an animal that was "alien" to Sudan, he said. "She deserved what she got," he added.

The police did not intervene, indicating that the protest received the official approval of the authorities".

Finally, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri pops up again in 'The Independent' who describe him as a prominent hardline cleric based at the Martyrs' Mosque near where the demonstration took place, and it quotes him as saying: "Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion. This is an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Mohamed."

Quite clearly Abdul and his ilk do not consider that Islam is a religion of peace, but rather that it is to be used as a vile, barbaric instrument of repression, torture, misogyny and hatred, the sole purpose of which is to enable them to impose their own psychopathic personalities on others under the false-cloak of religious respectability.

In one respect, however, Adbul is correct: Islam does not mean 'peace' despite what the mealy-mouthed apologists for that religion would like to have us believe - it means 'submission'. And whilst this submission is ostensibly to the 'will of god', what it actually means in practice is submission to the will of evil nutters like Abdul and his kind.

After all, how else could it be otherwise, for no believer has ever been able to produce a single scintilla of credible evidence that this entity which they refer to as 'god' ever existed - and not even the ramblings of a power-mad delusional paedophile called Mohammed who lived in the Dark Ages (and many of his followers still do) merits cognisance as anything a rational mind would apply the word 'truth' to.

Meanwhile, the last word in this sorry tale belongs to Gillian Gibbons herself. According to the BBC, her son, John Gibbons, told told The Associated Press on Friday:

"One of the things my mum said today was that 'I don't want any resentment towards Muslim people'.

She doesn't want people using her and her case as something to stoke up resentment towards anyone, towards Sudanese people, towards Muslim people or whatever.

You know, that's not the type of person she is, that's not what she wants."

Seems that the Gibbons family have much they could teach ignorant bastards like the imam Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri.

An Insult To Islam

2007-11-27T20:48:00.000Z

This poor woman is none other than Gillian Gibbons, a British primary school teacher who went out to Sudan and tried to do her bit for some of those she felt were most in need of her professional skills, but who is now beginning life as a criminal, having been found guilty by a kangaroo-court in Khartoum of 'insulting religion' and sentenced to 15 days in a stinking Sudanese jail prior to being deported.

Her crime? Asking her class of little children to name the classroom mascot, a teddy bear, and acceding to the request of one 7 year old and 19 of his compatriots - making it an almost unanimous choice as 20 out of the 23 children in the class chose it - that the bear should be named Mohammed, like himself. The school director, Robert Boulos, said each child was then allowed to take the bear home at weekends and told to write a diary about what they did with it.

Subsequently, Miss Gibbons was arrested and charged under Article 125 of Sudanese criminal law which deals with so-called 'insults against faith and religion'. She was subsequently charged on 3 counts: insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

This poor woman faced 40 lashes in public, 12 month in jail and/or a hefty fine, and appeared in court today without her legal team being given any opportunity up to 23:00 hors last night to prepare her defence. Today, in the travesty of a court that conducts so-called 'justice'in this shit-hole of a country, the judge silenced Miss Gibbons' legal team as they started their defence, stating that "[he'd] heard enough". The judge then proceeded to find Miss Gibbons guilty, and sentenced her to 15 days imprisonment followed by immediate deportation.

Still, Miss Gibbons should consider herself lucky - if she survives her ordeal - for Sudan's top clerics had called for the full measure of the law to be used against her as they claimed that her actions are part of a Western plot against Islam.

Well I've got some news for you, you ignorant, misogynistic Muslim morons, the only persons guilty of insulting Islam are you, and the sooner that you and all your fundamentally-challenged lunatic delusional religious psychopaths are expunged from the face of the earth the better off we'll all be.

Sanctimonious Saudis At It Again.

2007-11-27T08:05:00.000Z

The ignorant and backward kingdom of Saud has been made so angry by the criticism of its ridiculous religious laws by articles such as this one that it has spoken out in its defence. According to the BBC, the woman whom we all thought had been treated so abominably by those misogynistic morons in Riyadh had actually been treated fairly for, according to the inappropriately-titled Saudi justice minister, she had:

"confessed to doing what God has forbidden"

The justice ministry went on to bleat whiningly about what it called "foreign interference" in the case and threatened to cancel the lucrative contracts it has doled out to its lackeys in the West, primarily the UK and the US, which explains why the BBC concludes its report with this comment:

The US, a major Saudi ally, declined to comment specifically on the sentence, but did call the case "astonishing"

Well, at least they had expressed some opinion, which is more than one can say for the arse-licking Brits - after all, did not one of our government ministers in a previous administration actually pimp for catamites when these Saudi princes and ministers visited the West, even though it was illegal for Mr Aitken to have done so?

However, the Saudi justice ministry did let a couple of new pieces of information come to light: first, that the woman that they intend flogging near to death allegedly admitted that she was having an adulterous affair with her male companion whom she was with in the vehicle at the time they were attacked by the gang of lust-driven slavering brutes, and second, that the gang were not content with raping the woman but were so consumed by lust that they raped her male-companion also - thereby demonstrating the oft-repeated claim that woman are equal to men under Islam is not entirely spurious.

Those whose voices are raised demanding equality for the sexes will be pleased to know that the male rape victim was also sentenced to the same 90 lashes that his female companion was. Fortunately for him, however, he did not question the so-called justice being meted out to him by brutish Shari'a law, so he escaped the additional 110 lashes and 6 months in prison ladled-out to his woman companion who, it seems, did have the balls to complain.

And to think that 40% of Muslims living in the UK claim that they want Shari'a law imposed here too.

More Delusional Nonsense

2007-11-26T09:30:00.000Z

According to a recent poll conducted on behalf of the proselytizing Xtian charity Tearfund, two in five adults say prayers and one in three believes that God is watching over them, whilst a third think that God will answer their prayers, but interestingly enough the poll does not indicate what respondents meant by this entity they all refer to as 'God', and Tearfund chooses not to enlighten us either.

However, since Tearfund proclaims itself to be a Xtian charity, whose 10-year mission is...

"...to see 50 million people released from material and spiritual poverty through a worldwide network of 100,000 local churches."

... presumably their glib answer would be that everyone who took part in the survey had the Xtian model of 'God' in mind, as if that answered the question adequately. Well, I've got some news for you: It doesn't.

For a start, the Bible, which many claim contains the inerrant words of this Xtian God, makes it quite clear that only those who adopt 'His' commandments and rules have any hope of having their prayers answered, yet only one in five adults participating in the poll admit to attending church at least once a month despite the fact that the Xtian God of the Bible demands a greater commitment at his altar than this. Consequently, these sporadic church-goers who hope that their prayers will be answered must have a different 'God' in mind to the one referred to in the Bible, since 'He' makes it clear that their prayers simply will not be answered.

Not so, says Christopher Rowland, Dean Ireland professor of the exegesis of holy scripture at the University of Oxford, for we can all pick and choose which parts of the Bible we are prepared to pay lip-service to - or to put it in his own words quoted directly from his article in 'The Guardian' :

"Too much study of the Bible is either completely dismissive of it, or excessively reverential. It doesn't allow for creative, imaginative engagement with it, recognising its limitations and delighting in it as a resource through which to stimulate understanding, rather than a book of moral precepts."

In other words, the faithful can simply use their faculties of 'creative, imaginative engagement' to ignore the parts of the Bible which they don't care for or which are just too inconvenient to adopt in the modern world.

But that still begs the question: Who or what is this so-called 'God' these people are praying to?

More importantly, what credible evidence do those who claimed to 'believe' that their prayers will be answered have to substantiate that claim, for without such evidence their claim is not a justified true belief but simply wishful thinking and delusion.

But then again, I suggest that the whole poll was a fraudulently based exercise using highly biased questioning in order to load the responses in favour of the results wanted by the organisers.

Why else would Tearfund's Chief Execuive, Matthew Frost, claim that this clearly flawed poll:

"...demonstrates the prevalence and potential of prayer."

Or that the results:

"...fly in the face of the view that faith is increasingly irrelevant in today's secular society."

As Professor Ronald Weiers used to say:

"Researchers have a moral and a professional obligation not to distort he principles of market research and statistical inference in order to produce the result they might wish for...one must take especial care in the design of questions asked of respondents...words or concepts used should be free from bias or mis-interpretation...."

Frankly, I doubt whether Tearfund or their pollsters either explained to their respondents what they meant by the word 'God' nor quizzed their respondents on their own interpretation of it.

In conclusion, it's just another piece of worthless, so-called, research, produced with the sole intention of complementing Tearfund's proselytizing role and fulfilling the delusional psychopathology of theists.

Another Phoney Priest Speaks Out

2007-11-25T20:41:00.000Z

This phoney is none other than Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, who has responded to this story regarding Tony B-liar's pusillanimity regarding his failure to declare that his faith was an essential part of his Premiership in ~~running~~ ruining our country. Nazir-Ali told the BBC:

"I am sorry that Tony Blair feels he could not talk about his faith in case people thought he was a nutter.
A Christian vision underlies all that is important about Britain: its laws, institutions and values.

However, it would seem that like most so-called Xtians, Nazir-Ali is quite selective about which of the particular values he takes from the book of myths and fairy tales he refers to as the 'Bible'. For example, I doubt whether he, or Blair for that matter, consider that their so-called God's orders in Leviticus 6:5 regarding the lies which politicians and clergy regularly try to palm off on us have any relevance to themselves:

[Believers who lie and obtain things by deceit from others] shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering [ a ram without blemish] to the Lord.

Not that that's the only one of their so-called God's orders which they deliberately ignore, such as the detailed instructions in Leviticus 13 and 14 on how to treat lepers and leprosy, or how about Leviticus 19:11

Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

Not to mention the infamous Leviticus Chapter 20 which promises the death penalty for people who swear at their parents, or for adulterers, those who indulge in incest, and homosexuals, or banishment from the UK for having sex during the woman's menses, to name some of their so-called God's more ridiculous values.

Mind you, were Nazil-Ali really to believe these irrefragible orders which were allegedly utteredd by his so-called God, he would immediately resign from his Bishopric - more accurately be referred to as a 'bishop-prick' - since his 'Lord' said in Leviticus 21:5:

[Priests] shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard...

And again in 21:18

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not [be a priest, and this includes] a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous...

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Nazir-Ali is clean-shaven, bald, and wears a pair of spectacles.

Why do the words 'hypocrite', 'charlatan' and 'mountebank' spring to mind?

Probably because I've just encountered yet another phoney priest speaking out.

The National Secular Society is correct: we do not need these people intruding in public life. Or, as Ruth Wishart stated in 'The Herald' this week:

“What is not acceptable is that the UK Parliament should be subjected to sustained emotional blackmail from representatives of the one-fifth of the population who said in a poll this month that they attended church ‘once a year or more’. Constantly, the cry goes up from ecclesiastical quarters that we live in a Godless society whose handcart is accelerating to hell. In fact, we live in a society where many church leaders constantly attempt to subvert the democratic will of the majority.”

Man In Frock Makes Startling Admission

2007-11-25T12:40:00.001Z

In an interview for the Muslim magazine 'Emel' the Archbuffoon of Durovernum, Rowan Williams, slipped into one of his most expensive dresses before snuggling up to his fellow delusional psychotics by declaiming that:

"There is something about Western modernity which really does eat away at the soul."

When asked to define exactly what he meant by that extraordinary claim, Williams shrugged and told his interlocutors that he hadn't the faintest idea, but that he thought it would sound good to his Muslim readers, despite the fact that their religion scorns men who wear frocks - unless, of course, they are doing so to evade capture or to defeat an enemy.

Actually, I would like the Archbuffoon to define what exactly he means by 'soul' as well as explaining in what way he considers that 'Western modernity' has 'eaten away' at it.

I would also remind the Grand Poseur Williams that no less a figure than Gautama Buddha himself taught that there is no such thing as the 'soul', so that it is more accurate to state that ancient Eastern philosophy destroyed the soul once and for all - and that it did so long before there even was anything that could be described vaguely as 'Western modernity'.

In short, what completly dysfunctional charlatans like Williams want is for the rest of us to acknowledge their authority to tell us how to live our lives.

Well, I got some advice for you, Rowan: why don't your sort slip into your prettiest dresses and go fuck yourselves - I'm sure it'll be a welcome relief to choirboys, not to mention the rest of us.

Blair Admits His Delusional Psychopathy

2007-11-25T09:55:00.000Z

According to 'The Telegraph' today, our quondam leader took us into the illegal invasion of Iraq because he claims he is devoutly religious and communes with "the man upstairs" who "tell's him the answers, and that's it."
However, Blair went on to complain that people in Britain regard religion with suspicion - especially when used as a defence for their decisions by their politicians. He opined:

"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system. If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally.
You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter."

According to Blair's ultra-sympatico confidante, Peter 'The Pederast' Mandleson, apparently Blair takes a Bible with him wherever he goes and habitually reads it last thing at night - and I'll leave it to my readers to ponder how, exactly,Mandy came to know that.

Naturally, that other great delusional psychopath, The ~~Archbishop~~ Archbuffoon of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said:

"Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."(emphasis added)

No, mate, it's delusional psychopaths like you who are ' profoundly mistaken in [your] understanding of faith.

'Faith', by definition, is a psychological condition which cannot be considered to be what philosophers or psychologists call 'justified true belief', since 'faith' is characterised solely by the adamant refusal on the part of the faithful to acknowledge logic, ratiocination, or empiric evidence when these show their faith to be exactly what it is - a form of delusional psychopathology that is indistinguishable from any other acknowledged mental illness.

But if any of the so-called 'faithful' out there still doubt that they are either simply delusional psychotics, at best, or manipulative liars, at worst, then let me remind them that, over the millennia, none of their kind has ever been able to produce either a shred of credible evidence or a valid logical argument proving that their so-called 'god' exists anywhere outside their own psyches - oh, by the way, pointing to the collective madness of the 'faithful' over the millennia is evidence of nothing other than what the philosopher Charles Mackay, who was also a Reverend, called 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'.

More Muslim Justice Misogyny

2007-11-16T10:11:00.000Z

The BBC have reported yet another example of Muslim justice - well, you wouldn't expect them to call it misogyny, would you? I mean, it might result in the Saudis withdrawing their lucrative contracts for billions of pounds and our mealy-mouthed government branding the BBC's actions as being 'against the national interest [to criticise anything the Saudis do]. Nevertheless, the report not only demonstrates the misogyny at the heart of Islam, but also the real division between the Sunnis and the Shias - remember that the latter are the minority in Saudi.

Admittedly I don't have all the facts of the case, but then these are not relevant under Shari'a law - especially when it involves a woman victim. Nevertheless, the main issues seem quite clear:

A young Shia woman was gang-raped 14 times by 7 Sunni men.
The woman complained to the authorities and the court imposed 90 lashes on her for being in the car of one of the men.
The men faced the death penalty for the rape, but were given lenient jail-sentences.
The woman appealed against her sentence.
The court then more than doubled her lashes to 200 AND imposed a 6 month jail term on her for daring to complain to the press about her original barbaric punishment.
Admittedly the court also doubled the prison terms of her rapists, but even it has still been extremely lenient when the mandated penalty according to the fiqh (the rules of Islamic jurisprudence) is death - and remember that the fiqh is derived from the 'inerrant words of Allah' as allegedly set-out in the Qur'an.

Still, I suppose the young woman considers herself very lucky that the court didn't impose lapidation on her.

Note: actually lapidation isn't all bad - if you're not on the receiving end of it, that is. According to a geologist friend of mine, that's how oil was first discovered in Arabia - the men were scrabbling around in the sand looking for rocks to throw at their women-folk when one lucky misogynist by the name of Saud put his hand in something black and oozing, and lo! the Kingdom of Saud ensued.

Are 'Honour Killings' Cultural or Religious?

2007-11-13T10:07:00.000Z

According to the UN report, 'The State of World Population 2000' , perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the "dishonour" of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

Admittedly the grotesquely named practice of so-called 'honour killing' is not exclusively restricted to Muslims, but the cases that have come to light would suggest that it is most widely practised by people of that persuasion. Why this is so is not such a mystery, since the Qur'an and the Sunnah together form the Shari'a, which deals with every aspect of life, including international, constitutional, administrative, criminal, civil, family, and religion. Subsequently, Islamic scholars made legal rulings on the basis of the Shari'a, and these are called the Fiqh. Now the Fiqh recognises four classes of crimes, the most serious of which are called Houdoud.

Houdoud crimes are said to be so serious that they threaten the very existence of Islam per se, and they are to be punished in accordance with the penalties set forth in the Qur'an itself - which is, after all, the so-called inerrant words of 'god' - or the Sunnah - matters which were subsequently laid down by Muhammad, either by his word or deed. Houdoud crimes include adultery, defamation, theft, robbery, rebellion, drunkenness, and apostasy, and some are punishable by death - specifically adultery, which is classed alongside apostasy. As a general rule the death penalty is to be carried out by the sword, but for adultery the woman is to be stoned to death as this is slower and more painful for her - and a greater deterrent to other women.

However, Sharif Kanaana, professor of anthropology at Birzeit University has stated that 'honour killing' is:

A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honor(sic) killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior(sic). What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power.

Not only does the Professor make no reference to the Fiqh imposing the death penalty for sexual transgressions, were his explanation that culture rather than religion be blamed for this barbaric practice, a woman who produced only female children should also be killed by the tribe, since she would be a distinct liability by failing in her duty to be 'a factory for making men', especially as these same men readily murder their girl-children when they consider them a burden.

Although the organisation 'Human Rights Watch' declared in 2001 that...

Honor(sic) crimes are not specific to any religion, nor are they limited to any one region of the world. Human Rights Watch has worked on this issue in the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

... the fact remains that the practice is predominantly one practised by Muslims qua Muslims. Furthermore, there is nothing to distinguish the cultural or the religious practices of these people, for both are born out of their collective ignorance and superstition. And irrespective of what anyone says to the contrary, there is no honour is 'honour killings', they are simply another means of men expressing their insecurities, misogyny and control over women - but that's what religion is all about anyway!

More Mad Muslim Mutterings Lies

2007-11-10T08:50:00.000Z

The delusional psychotic pictured is none other that Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

Amongst other things, he thinks the Government is stoking the tension between Muslims and the rest of us.

After all, Bari declared yesterday in an interview with 'The Daily Telegraph' that there would be no problem if we all simply adopted Muslim ways.

Bari also likened us to Nazis for demonising his people and referring to Islamic terrorists. He declaimed:

"Terrorists are terrorists, they may use religion but we shouldn't say Muslim terrorists, it stigmatises the whole community. We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists."

Well, Dr Bari, if you're going to make comparisons, here are some other facts that you should consider:

The IRA never carried out their terrorist attacks in the name of Catholicism, but Muslim terrorist do it in the name of Islam.
The Roman Catholic religion does not make it a holy duty of its adherents to kill all apostates, unbelievers, and anyone it considers enemies of Roman Catholicism, but the Qur'an, the Hadith, many Islamic leaders and scholars do declare that it is the holy duty of Muslims to do so in the name of Allah, and that those who do not join in the jihad are themselves legitimate targets for butchering.
The Roman Catholic religion never promised the IRA terrorists that they would be rewarded extravagantly in the place they call 'Heaven' for their murderous terrorist attacks yet Islam does precisely that.
Muslim scholars, of which you are one, know full well that a 'Muslim' is defined as 'one who submits to Allah' and that 'Islam' is simply the collective noun for these people.

In short, Dr Bari, when a religion qua religion exhorts its adherents to murder those they think deserve it and promises the perpetrators rewards for doing so, it is perfectly correct to name those perpetrators as religious terroists. Therefore, Dr Bari, it is accurate to refer to those Muslims who exhort and carry-out these atrocities as either Muslim or Islamic Terrorists, so please stop insulting out intelligence with your specious and diversionary example of the IRA.

Mind you, there are some amusing parts in Bari's apologia for the murdering Muslim scum amongst his people, like his defence for not doing anything to remove the terrorist pamphlets, videos and books from the bookshop in the East London Mosque - where he was the Chair - Bari had this to say:

"The bookshops are independent businesses. We can't just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?"

Now, to appreciate the sick-humour of that statement, you must compare Bari's mealy-mouthed pack of lies with his attack on Sir Salmand Rushdie:

Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted. "He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped."

Sauce for the goose, eh Bari?

More of Mad Bari's bon mots, with suitable addenda:

Religion has principles that can help society - like killing those who don't believe in it.
Alcohol is the worst drug long-term - as anyone trying to get of crack-cocaine will tell you.
Sex before marriage is unacceptable in Islam - so non-believers shouldn't be allowed to do it either.
Homosexuality is "unacceptable from the religious point of view" - but homicide is acceptable, provided Islam sanctions it (it does for homosexuals), or its an 'honour killing' of one of your daughters.
Stoning women to death for adultery is OK - it just depends on the size of the rocks you throw at them.

As it says in the title: More Mad Muslim ~~Mutterings~~ Lies.

PS: The BBC also carries this story with some additional comments from deluded fools who think that Allah actually exists anywhere apart from in their imagination. One of them, Farmida Bi from the Progressive British Muslims organisation agreed that British society as a whole could benefit from adopting some of the teachings of Islam. She said:

"A lot of what [Islam] says is relevant and important to our society today..."

Such as what, Farmida?

And whilst you're pondering that, name one thing that Islam says that is as relevant or important to our society than anything that the National Secular Society or the British Humanist Association have to say, for example.

But perhaps there is hope for the likes of Farmida yet, for she concludes:

"...but at the same time Muslims have to acknowledge that the West has an awful lot to teach the Muslim community as well."

And here's something to start with - people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional psychotics, irrespective of whether they call that non-existent being Allah, Yahvey, God, Santa Claus, Cthulthu, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any of the other ten thousand silly names that the ignorant, irrational, superstitious, or psychopathological have invented to explain the creation of the cosmos over the millennia.

PS: An excellent response to the MCB and Bari and his ilk can be found here - and whilst you're there, check out some of Mr Condell's other videos as they are, in my opinion, excellent and say some of the things that need to be said by those of us who have no truck with organised religion.

Religion should be a private affair for those who need it, but if they use it in order to force their delusional views on the rest of us then, if they are not willing to accept counselling for their underlying psychpathological problems that have driven them to religion in the first place, they should be excoriated and held up to the ridicule and disapprobation that they rightly deserve.

The Delusion of Delusion

2007-10-26T20:36:00.000+01:00

Recently someone using the pseudonym 'brucev' left a couple of comments of one of my past blog entries, no doubt hoping that I wouldn't see them and that they'd be left to stand unchallenged.

Unfortunately 'brucev' was too pusillanimous to declare openly whether he was a theist, though it seems likely from his comments that he is - and forgive me if 'brucev' should be either feminine or androgynous, but allow that I use the pronoun 'he' simply for brevity. Nevertheless, irrespective of brucev's gender, it is quite clear that he is either duplicitous or disingenuous, given the tenor of his 'drive-by' comments, since he asserts that I would not accept any evidence that what he refers to as 'God the Father' exists, but notably fails to produce a single scintilla of evidence that this fabled entity does. Naturally, I have challenged brucev to do so, but I doubt that he will respond - unsurprising, really, since theists have failed this challenge completely over the millennia, which is why they can be accurately diagnosed as suffering from delusional psychosis; in simply terms, they are mentally ill or, in vulgar usage, 'mad'.

Presumably brucev is aware that there is no credible evidence that this so-called 'god' to which he refers so reverentially exists- but if not, then he is truly delusional - which is why he makes an appeal to authority, in the persona of Roger Primrose. Unfortunately, the claims which brucev attributes to Primrose do not have the authority which he would wish to confer on them, but even if they did, they are both irrelevant and nonsensical from a mathematical standpoint, as I have pointed out in my response to his moronic comments. Furthermore, even if Pemrose's estimates (to use his own words, not 'calculations' as brucev ~~lies~~ claims) of the probability of the cosmos coming into existence without some form of cognitive design and direction were correct, they would no more prove the existence of this 'god' to which brucev refers to than the existence of a pumpkin proves that birds were designed to fly, or some such equally irrelevant metaphor.

Brucev also fails to explain why this 'God the Father' to which he refers and credits with designing the cosmos is any more credible that the 4,397 other so-called 'gods' of creation that mankind has, at the last count, invented over the 12,000 years or so since relatively modern humanoids trod the earth. In short, where is his evidence that the cosmos was not created by Ctulthu, Negominod, Qu-D'a'athlon, Yug'th'lato, Tu-tal-em'pthon, or Pan himself - or even that its existence is simply a figment of his imagination?

In conclusion, as a mathematician of some small repute myself, I estimate that the probability of the existence of anyone by the name of brucelev is in the region of 1 to the exponential power of 287 trillion zeroes, but that if any such person does in fact exist, the probability of him being a delusional psychopath is 1.

In other words, brucelev, put up some real evidence that this 'god' you refer to exists, or accept that you are a sad, delusional, psychopathological moron.

Phoney Priest, Phoney Church

2007-10-24T09:13:00.000+01:00

The arch-swindler, charlatan and mountebank Francesco Forgione, who preferred to be known as Padre Pio, has been finally exposed for what he was by a new book by the Italian historian, Sergio Luzzatto.

Forgione, you will remember, exhibited what he claimed to be the 'stigmata of Christ' on his own hands throughout his time in the priesthood, and it was for this reason alone that he rose to prominence and power within that totally corrupt organisation known as the Roman Catholic church, and was finally canonised to become Italy's most loved 'Saint'.

Luzzatto discovered evidence in the Vatican's own secret archives which included the testimony of a pharmacist that she had provided Forgione with the carbolic acid that he subsequently used to burn the phoney stigmata on his hands.

Naturally this proof of Forgione's deceit has not gone down well in Italy, where 'Saint Pio' is apparently prayed to more than 'Jesus' himself, but then that's only fitting since Forgione spent his life preying on the gullible mass of Italian morons who now hold his memory so dear.

Pietro Siffi, the President of the The Catholic Anti-Defamation League has responded with the allegation that Signor Luzzatto is a liar and is "spreading anti-Catholic libels". Siffi then offered complete exoneration for Forgione's swindling with this risible claim:

"We would like to remind Signor Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."

Quite!

Siffi continued with this rather unwise exhortation from a so-called 'believer':

"We would like to suggest to Signor Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."

As anyone who studies religion will come to the ineluctable conclusion that the whole business, for it is a business, is nothing but a complete fraud visited on the ignorant, superstitious and psychopathological amongst us, but then what is the purpose of 'The Catholic Anti-Defamation League' if it is not to stop anyone questioning their stupid religion.

Those interested in more details on how Padre Pio faked his stigmata with acid can find the story here, in today's 'The Telegraph'.

The Archbuffoon of Durovernum Ponders

2007-10-21T10:22:00.001+01:00

There's an interesting, though not surprising, exposé in The Sunday Telegraph today confirming that child abuse has gone unchecked in the Church of England for decades amid a cover up by bishops.

According to that newspaper, information that could have prevented abuse has been "lost or damaged", concerns about individuals have been ignored and allegations have not been recorded. It means that the Church has no idea how many paedophiles are in its midst.

Lawyers warned last night that the Church faces a crisis as catastrophic as the one that engulfed the Roman Catholic Church and cost it millions of pounds in damages.

Richard Scorer, a solicitor who has specialised in child abuse cases, said that the Church of England's mistakes amounted to "an appalling, shocking level of negligence" that is likely to leave it open to claims from victims who have been too afraid to speak out in the past. The Church is to launch an urgent investigation on an unprecedented scale.

Nevertheless, the church proved once again that it is willing to ignore completely the evidence under it's collective noses when a spokesman claimed: "We would hope that in the majority of cases things have been dealt with, but we are realistic enough to admit that mistakes have been made and there may still be some risk attached to those cases."

Needless to say, the Archbuffoon of Durovernum has decided that he can no longer ignore the most egregious behaviour of his colleagues and has concluded that it is time to put up an appearance of doing something about it. Consequently, he said:

"Every parish has got to have a child protection policy and it needs to work properly."

Though if Williams was really serious about initiating a 'child protection policy' he would stop indoctrinating children with his delusional psychopathological beliefs that his so-called 'god' actually exists, but the chances of that happening are as likely as him rooting out all the 'sickos' in his church.

Not only is there no 'god' but there appears to be little morality in the church.

What a surprise.

But, hey, let's not pre-judge the issue; let's wait for the cover-up and whitewash report in a couple or so years time.

Sane People Do Not Believe In Imaginary Beings

2007-10-15T21:52:00.000+01:00

Alan Sokel, that great physicist and brilliant exposer of humbugs, charlatans and frauds, once famously wrote in the journal Lingua Franca:

"...facts and evidence do matter. What sane person would contend otherwise?"

Whilst Sokel was mainly concerned with exposing the trendy post-modern gibberish spouters who infest the 'social sciences'/'humanities/'cultural studies' departments of academe for the frauds that they are, he could just as well have included theologians, clerics, (ad)ministers of religion, theists in general and all who pay lip-service to some so-called 'god' or other. For what credible evidence is there that there are any 'gods' at all, or even that the Abrahamic 'god' is the one above all the others?

Despite the fact that some leading Muslim clerics wrote a letter recently to their counterparts in the main Xtian denominations claiming that upward of 50% of the world's population believe in this common 'god' of theirs, no-one over the millennia has been able to produce a single scintilla of evidence supporting the existence of this fabled and fabulous creature. According to Alan Sokel's test, therefore, these people are not sane - but then anyone who is familiar with what Charles Mackay called 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' in his seminal book of that name, would be left in no doubt that was the case.

The laugh is, Mackay was himself a Reverend, but failed to appreciate that his so-called 'vocation' and religious beliefs were actually indistinguishable from the psychopathology of his other case-histories.

Or, to paraphrase Sokel: Sane people do not believe in imaginary beings, therefore all religionists are nutters.

But then we already knew that, didn't we.

PS. Anyone who is interested in Sokel's original paper, 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' , that exposed these charlatans for what they are, can find it here; believe me, it's worth the effort.

Mad Priest (Is There Any Other Kind) Attacks Atheists.

2007-10-14T09:41:00.000+01:00

The madman on the left is none other than Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and titular head of the world-wide Anglican communion, who has been ranting and railing recently about and against people who criticise religion.

According to the BBC, Williams declared to an audience of over 1,000 fellow loons in Swansea yesterday that "...religion is [not] an eccentric survival strategy [n]or [an] irrational form of explanation."

The ~~Archbishop~~ Archbuffoon went on to declare that...

religion could not be viewed from a scientific point of view because belief in God was unconditional.

If that is not de facto proof that the man is completely and totally irrational, I don't know what is.

Some more of Williams' famed opaque and totally irrational language is quoted by the BBC:

'I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, subject to further explanation', is not a creed that's prevalent in the Christian world.

And

The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to.

Those amongst us who are not given over to Williams' brand of complete irrationality will recognise that he, and those who subscribe to his delusional fantasies about his invented sky-daddy, are absolutely indistinguishable, from a diagnostic standpoint, from delusional psychotics. Thus, in common parlance, it is true to say that Williams and his ilk are truly mad.

The Rabbi's Conundrum

2007-10-13T23:34:00.000+01:00

Recently, in The Times, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead, concluded an article with this rather incredible statement:

"To be a good Jew does not necessarily mean believing in God, just doing what He says."

However, if one does not believe in the existence of this so-called 'god', why would one pay any heed to the sayings that are attributed to it?

The Rabbi attempts to circumlocute his way around this fundamental flaw in his argument by claiming that all that is necessary [to be a Jew] is to follow what is considered to be their so-called god's most important command, viz: “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19) or, as Hillier reformulated it in the 1st century, "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” - sometimes referred to as 'the Golden Rule' - yet treating others in a way that one would like them to treat oneself almost certainly pre-dates the anthropomorphic entity that theists have invented and graced with the name of 'god'.

Nevertheless, the Rabbi's argument has some merit, in that it is a de facto an acknowledgement that it is not necessary to believe in 'god' to live a moral and decent life, something that many other theists have extreme difficulty in accepting and regularly accuse atheists of being incapable of morality, ethics, compassion, empathy,love, art, literature, aesthetics, or any of the other so-called 'higher' emotions that they arrogantly ascribe to themselves alone.

However, I must contradict the good Rabbi: someone who does not believe in your 'god' may still be a Jew in your opinion but they are, by definition, an atheist in anyone else's.

What I Have To Say To Theists...

2007-10-13T22:53:00.001+01:00

Prove your 'god' exists, or accept that you're MAD!

How To Reduce Your Carbon Footprint.

2007-10-12T18:45:00.001+01:00

The churches here have been jumping on the latest bandwagon by telling us that it is our Xtian duty to cut our carbon footprint and save the planet, which implies that:-

1. Atheists are under no obligation to curtail their customary activities and revert back to living in unheated hovels, walk everywhere and to refuse any of the embellishments of the 21st Century which make life more pleasant, comfortable, safer, healthier, or just downright entertaining and enjoyable.

2. That the efforts of man alone can 'save the planet' which means that the Xtian 'god' is unable to do so using his own endeavours - and if that is not evidence that their so-called 'god' is not omni-powerful, then I fail to see what is.

Nevertheless, the movement gathers apace, with the recent beatification of Al Gore for his fatally flawed propaganda movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' (which was graced recently by the luvvies in La-La land with an Oscar, despite the fact that a UK Judge has declared subsequently that it contains not one inconveninet LIE, but ELEVEN of them!) and his award today of the Nobel Prize for Peace.

And to think I had thought that the Nobel Committee had sunk to a new low when it awarded Doris Lessing the Literature Prize yesterday.

PS. The foregoing was written on the strength of the Judge's interim verdict, which did indeed specify eleven falsehoods, but subsequently he published his final verdict which refers to only NINE of them - one having been dropped entirely and two others combined into the one point. Still, to paraphrase my friend Revenant, who blogged on this issue, the number of scientific errors in Gore's film exceed the number that one would find in a (very) bad sci-fi movie. Indeed they do.

Another Lying Priest

2007-10-10T10:40:00.000+01:00

This piece of vile ordure is none other than the Roman Catholic priest, Father Christian Von Wernich, who has just been convicted in Argentina of participating in 7 murders, 42 abductions and 31 cases of torture.

According to the BBC, Von Wernich claimed that all his accusers were influenced by the devil because he said:

"False testimony is of the devil, because he is responsible for malice and is the father of evil and lies."

Well, he should know, since both he, and his master in Rome, have spent their entire lifetimes lying to people about the existence of their imaginary 'god'.

Still, taking part in murder, abductions and torture - not to mention breaching the confidences of the confessional - is going just a little too far, don't you think?

It's only a pity that the same fate which he visited on others doesn't await Von Wernich, but no doubt the Catholic church is doing all it can behind the scenes to ensure that he is treated far more leniently than his victims.

What Really Goes On In The Heads Of Theists.

2007-10-09T19:14:00.000+01:00

New breakthroughs in fMRI technology have allowed neuro-psychologists to study the brains of theists and to determine what goes on in them in amazing detail. As Professor Aaron T. Zuckerman, Head of Neuroscience at Beth-Immelman University, Haifa, says, "These images are absolutely astounding, and give us an accurate picture of the cognitive functioning of theists for the first time ever, and confirms what we have heretofore simply surmised."

Those who wish to see an example of Professor Zuckeman's findings can see an animated clip of the inter-cranial neuro-functioning of a devout 'god' believer here , which the Professor assures me is absolutely typical.

Apparently, the white areas represent theists' vacuity and the moving black object is that of their idée fixe that there is a supernatural sky-daddy who created their otherwise empty and meaningless little lives.

Sad bastards.

Loonie Rabbi Speaks Out Nonsense.

2007-10-08T20:16:00.000+01:00

The figure on the left is non other than Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, and the words attributed to him are a fair rendition of the risible article he published in The Times recently.

Sacks seems to think that without the mystical and supernatural mumbo-jumbo that is religion that science, nay life, is arid, sterile and meaningless. Further, he opines that acts of artistic merit, human sacrifice and love are observable only in the human world as a result of us having a 'soul', and he quotes a number of examples to 'prove' his ridiculous contention - one of the most risible being that of Buddhist monks standing up to the junta in Burma (demonstrating that he is clearly unaware that Buddhists believe that we do not have a 'soul'). Undeterred, Sacks then declares that our possession of a 'soul' is directly attributable to this supernatural entity he calls 'god' having created us in 'His' image - no doubt whilst 'He' was busy creating the rest of 'His' creation.

What delusional nonsense.

I suggest that it is about time your medics up your dose of risperidone, Jonny-boy.

Are you a kafir? I am.

2007-10-07T19:33:00.001+01:00

I met a South African of Boer descent recently. He went on about what the 'kafirs' were doing to his (the Boer's) county. His attitude though offensive was outclassed by his ignorance, since there are many amongst us who use the word 'kafir' without being aware that it is more than an offensive word for a black person. Few seem to appreciate that the etymology of the word derives from the Arabic word 'kaafir', meaning 'one who is aware of the message of Islam but refuses to worship Allah' (Arabic: "Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala").

Naturally, the early Arab conquerors of much of Northern Africa were delighted that many of the indigenous black tribes refused to worship Allah, because that gave their conquerors the excuse to enslave them and sell them for profit, and all in the name of serving their rather peculiar so-called 'god'. Arguably, this was a 'good thing' from the enslaved's point of view, since the only other alternative available to their allegedly 'devout' Muslim conquerors was to execute them in some horribly painful way.

Better to be enslaved than dead, eh?

This is not to suggest that the title of 'slaver' should be restricted only to those of Semitic origin, since many of the sons of Ham were equally guilty of the charge in their own right, as were many of the rest of us, though these facts tends to be omitted by those who choose to claim that slavery was exclusively the product of white racism. Ha ha.

Nevertheless, this abuse of language does show how a word can be distorted to imply something other that its original meaning - at least to non Arabic speakers, since its original meaning still pertains to them - and is why I am pleased to acknowledge that I am proud to be called a kafir.

When I advised my South African interlocutor of this, he nearly choked on his beer and suddenly remembered an appointment he had to keep elsewhere - probably with the local chapter of the Neo-Nazis.